MASTER  NEGATIVE 

NO.  93-81529- 


MICROFILMED  1 993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  **used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research.**  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair 
use,'*  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  Involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


I 


A  UTHOR: 


HUMPHREY,  GRIFFITH 
HENRY 


TITLE: 


CHRISTIANITY  AND 
INFIDELITY;  OR  THE 


PLACE: 


NEW  YORK 


DATE: 


1877 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MTCRnFORM  TARHFT 


Master  Negative  # 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Rec»rd 


f. 


Sol 
H885 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Humphrey,  G      H 

Cliristianity  and  infidelity;  or  the  Humphrey- 
Bennett  discussion  between  Rev.  G.  H.  Humphrey... 
and  D.  M.  Bennett...  Conducted  in  the  columns  of 

The  Truth  seeker,  commencing  April  7,  1877,  clos- 
ing Sept.  29,  1877...   New  York,  Bennett,  [18773 
XV,  533  p.   port.   19|^  cm. 


154123 


o 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE;     3£  t.^^yy\ 
IMAGE  PLACEMENT:   lA 

DATE     FILMED: A? 

HLMEDBY:   RESEARCH! 


IB    HB 


REDUCTION    RATIO:  /  At 


CT 


D 


Associatioii  for  Information  and  Image  Managamont 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100^ 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4        5        6        7 


8        9       10       n       12       13      14       15   mm 

iiiiIiinIiiiiIiiiiImiiIiimImiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiJiiiiIiiiiI 


m 


wm 


I  I  I  I  I 


Inches 


1 


T 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


I  I  I  I  I 


Urn 

|U 
■  vo 

IS. 
BiUu 


■  3.6 

1^ 


1.4 


2.5 
2.2 

2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


I   I   I  T  TT  T 

5 


MRNUFOCTURED  TO  flllM  STRNDRRDS 
BY  RPPLIED  IMRGE.  INC. 


PRIVATE  LIBRARY  OF 


"And  please  return  It .  You  may 
think  this  a  strange  request,  but  I 
find  that  although  many  of  my 
friends  are  poor  arithmeticians 
they  are  nearly  all  of  them  good 
book-keepers."— Scott. 


[ 

'] 


v^^m 


a 


Cidinntria  <Btittiei«itp 

tntlirCitpofJlnpllinlt 


LIBxviViv  Y 


GIVEN  BY 

THOMAS  WRIGHT 

1932 


\ 


•  Iki 

i 

lllr 

•1)1 

•  ••« 

\\\ 

I'" 

!"• 


•I! 


tncf '  l< 


*  kt,   r  ' 


:'»vlu 


B.Tirt*T!i:t« 


CHRISTIANITY  i  1 


OR  THE 


HUMPHREY-BENNETT  mSCHSSION 


BETWEBN 


REV.  G.   H.  HUMPHREY, 

or  a  ir.  T.  Presbyterian  Chureliy 


•  •• 


•       •      •       ••"•••   *•• 

«    •     •    •     •         •     •    •  •  •    \jan 

•         •••        ••••!^« 

•  ,♦    •••    •••    ••     •      ••• 

.  D,..M..5PNNETT, 


•••  •*, 


••.  •   • 


•  •    • 


CXXNDUCt^ED  iNif^BiCOLTMIISjOt  T^E  TRUTH  BEEKER,  COM- 
MEHClHG'ittRiLT/lSTT.'CtOSfNa  BBPT.  29,1877. 


**  Hear  Mk  tidet,  asud  Vwn  deoidtJ* 


I>.  M.  BENNETT, 

LIBERAL  AND   SOIENTIPIO  PUBLISmNG   HOUSE. 
141  Eighth  STwtBT,  New  York, 


•  •     •    .    •  ••,••  I    I 
•  -       •    ^••»   •  •  •    •    • 


•  •    •       • 

•  •     •         • 


*  •  *     *      ••  ••%■••. 


•       •     • 


•      -••         •••  •! 


•  •     • 


-  •        •      ♦       • 

•        «  •      •     • 

•  •      • 


•  • 


•  •• 

•  •    a 

•  •  «  • 


.•  • 


•     • 


•     •     • 


•  •  % 


CONTEN  rS. 


Part   I. 

The  Relativb  Services  of  Infidelitt  and  C^ristiah- 

iTY  TO  American  Liberty. 

Humphrey's  First  Letter,     . 
Bennett's  First  Reply, 
Humphrey's  Second  Letter,    . 
Bennett's  Second  Reply, 
Humphrey's  Third  Letter,     . 
Bennett's  Third  Reply,       .       •       ^ 
Humphrey's  Fourth  Letter,    .     . 
Bennett's  Fourth  Reply,     .       •       . 
Humphrey's  Fifth  Letter,      •       -. 
Bennett's  Fifth  Reply, 


1 
S 

n 

17 
28 
81 

fiO 

74 
93 


106 
120 
181 
155 
IM 


Part  II. 

The  Relative  Services  of  Infidelity  and  CmuBTiAH 

ITY  to  Learning  and  Sciekob. 

Humphrey's  Sixth  Letter,      .       ^       -       ^       • 
Bennett's  Sixth  Reply,        .       ,        .        .       . 
Humphrey's  Seventh  Letter.        •       ^       «        • 
Bennett's  Seventh  Reply,     .     .       .       •       • 
Humphrey's  Eighth  Letter,     .      .      ^       <       . 
Bennett's  Eighth  Reply,     ,       .       •       »       # 

Part  III.  ^ 
is  THERE  A  Stronger  Probability  that  the  Bible  is 

Divine  than  that  Infidelity  is  True. 
Humphrey's  Ninth  Letter,     .       .        •       .       . 
Bennett's  Ninth  Reply,       ,       •       •       •       • 
Humphrey's  Tenth  Letter,     .       *       •       *       . 
Bennett's  Tenth  Reply,       .       .       *       •       • 
Humphrey's  Eleventh  Letter,      •       •       •       • 
Bennett's  Eleventh  Reply,       .       •       «       • 
Humphrey's  Twelfth  Letter,       .       •       i       . 
Bennett's  Twelfth  Reply,         .       «       •       t 
Humphrey's  Thirteenth  Letter,  »       •       r 

Bennett's  Thirteenth  Reply,    .       •       •       • 


194 
209 
264 
285 
835 
854 
591 
417 
467 
^7 


■"  ■'iftit 


J 


INTRODUCTION. 


About  the  first  of  March,  1877,  the  Rev.  G.  H.  Humphrey 
visited  the  ofllce  of  The  Truth  Seeker  and  requested  that 
a  challenge  to  Ccl.  R.  G.  IngersoU  and  B.  P.  Underwood 
be  inserted  in  its  columns.  The  Editor  cheerfully  con- 
sented to  publish  the  same,  at  the  same  time  remarking  that, 
as  it  was  probable  that  both  IngersoU  and  Underwood  were 
too  much  engaged  to  admit  of  their  coming  here  to  debate 
with  him,  rather  than  have  him  disappointed,  he  himself 
would  hold  a  discussion  with  the  gentleman  in  the  columns 
of  The  Truth  Seeker.  Mr.  Humphrey  remarked  if 
neither  of  those  gentlemen  accepted  his  challenge  he  would 
perhaps  gladly  entertain  the  proposition.  In  the  issue  of 
The  Truth  Seeker  for  March  3d,  1877,  the  following  chal- 
lenge appeared  : 

A  PROPOSITION  TO  DEBATE— qUBSTIONS. 

1.  Ilid  Unbelievers  in  the  Bible  do  as  much  for  American 
Independence  as  the  believers  in  it  ? 

8.  Has  Infidelity  done  as  much  as  Christianity  to  pro- 
mote Learning  and  Science  f 

8.  Is  there  a  stronger  probability  that  Infidelity  is-  true 
than  that  the  Bible  is  divine  ? 

The  undersigned  has  challenged  Col.  R.  G.  IngersoU  to 
a  public  discussion  of  the  foregoing  propositions.  It  is  to 
be  hoped  he  will  accept,  but  should  he  decline,  Mr.  B.  F. 
Underwood  or  any  other  exponent  of  Paineology  will  be 
taken  as  a  substitute.  Very  respectfully, 

G.  H.  HUMPHRST. 

SI  Saat  Tenth  itreet.  New  York. 


11 


I'f 


ft  XNTEODUOnOir* 

In  the  same  issue  the  Editor  again  offered  his  services  t<r 
the  reverend  gentleman  in  case  the  two  persons  named 
did  not  respond  to  the  challenge.  After  waiting  two  or 
three  weeks,  and  hearing  nothing  from  either  IngersoU  or 
Underwood,  Mr.  Humphrey  accepted  the  Editor's  proposi- 
tion, and  arrangements  were  readily  made  for  the  discus- 
sion to  appear  in  The  Truth  Seeker,  Humphrey  taking 
the  initiative,  and  an  article  from  each  to  appear  alternately 
until  the  discussion  should  be  completed.  Accordingly 
Humphrey's  first  letter  appeared  in  the  issue  for  April  7th. 
On  Sept.  29th  appeared  Bennett's  reply  to  Humphrey's  thir- 
teenth letter,  the  discussion  having  continued  just  six 
months. 

It  is  but  fair  to  Mr.  Humphrey  to  state  that  he  has  no 
pecuniary  interest  in  the  publication  of  the  Discussion,, 
though  it  is  issued  in  this  form  with  his  entire  consent 

Presuming  that  some  who  may  read  the  following  pages 
may  be  interested  in  knowing  something  of  the  contestants,, 
brief  sketches  of  each  will  be  given. 


Skstcb  of  G.  H.  Humphbbt. 

My  opponent,  Mr.  Bennett,  has  asked  me  to  furnish  t^ 
sketch  of  my  life  to  be  inserted  in  the  Introduction  to  our 
Discussion.  I  dislike  to  do  it.  It  exposes  me  to  the  sus^ 
picion  of  vanity  and  conceit.  But  I  am  desirous  of  pleas- 
ing a  friend  in  that  which  is  indifferent,  if  not  good  ;  so  i 
will  reluctantly  yield  to  his  request.  There  is  not  a  char- 
acter in  the  alphabet  that  I  hate  so  much  as  the  letter  1.  In 
order  to  avoid  it,  let  me,  like  Csssar  or  Moses,  speak  of  my- 
self in  the  third  person. 

The  subject  of  this  sketch  was  born  in  Carnarvon  Shire,^ 
North  Wales,  in  the  year  1844.  When  he  was  less  than  a 
year  old,  his  parents  emigrated  to  Izonia,  Jefferson  Co.,. 
Wi!icoa8in,  where  he  remained  oa  a  larmr  until  his  majop^ 


INTRODUOnOH. 


▼11 


ity.  His  situation  there  had  no  special  advantages,  except 
the  proximity  of  many  Germans,  which  enabled  him  to  learn 
their  language.  When  twenty-one  he  entered  Washington 
&  Jefferson  College,  located  in  Washington,  Pa.,  where  he 
graduated  four  years  afterwards.  From  College  he  went 
to  the  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary  in  Allegheny 
City,  Pa.  He  studied  there  for  three  years.  His  firs* 
charge  was  in  Frostburg,  Md.,  which  he  assumed,  in  part, 
before  leaving  the  Seminary.  He  was  next  called  to  the 
Birmingham  Presbyterian  church,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  where 
he  remained  about  five  years.  In  Dec.  of  1876,  he  removed 
to  New  York  City,  to  take  charge  of  the  Welsh  Presby- 
terian church,  Nos.  225,  227,  229,  East  18th  street.  He  is 
now  living  at  343  East  15th  street,  where  he  will  be  glad  to 
see  not  only  his  Christian  but  his  Infidel  friends. 

His  mental  history  is  not  very  peculiar.  When  between 
seventeen  and  twenty-three  he  read  many  skeptical  works 
of  various  kinds.  His  object  in  doing  so  was  not  of  the 
noblest  kind.  It  was  done  more  in  the  spirit  of  dare-devil- 
ishness  than  anything  else.  A  boy  has  a  similar  motive  in 
entering  the  mysteries  of  tobacco-chewing.  Doubts  were 
engendered  in  his  mind.  But  he  kept  them  mostly  to  him- 
self. He  only  whispered  them  occasionally,  with  awful 
significance  to  his  friends.  He  was  rather  glad  to  be 
suspected  of  holding  peculiar  views.  He  considered 
his  skepticism  a  positive  proof  that  he  was  a  mighty  smart 
young  man.  As  he  had  read  German,  and  "critical" 
English  books,  he  thought  surely  he  must  have  something 
to  show  for  it  more  than  the  ordinary  belief.  He  fancied 
that  everybody  who  saw  him  said  within  himself,  *' What 
a  great  reader !    There  goes  a  thinker/  " 

But  a  change,  like  the  rising  of  the  sun,  came  gradually 
over  his  mind.  He  saw  that  some  of  his  companions  in 
skepticism  were  sinking  into  vice  and  immorality.  The 
more  they  sinned  the  more  they  doubted.  The  more  un- 
like true  Christians  they  became,  the  more  did  they  wani 


"^IISISC!!!!!!^ 


rfi 


I 


vUt 


niTBOiyironov* 


Christianity  to  be  antrae.    Although  they  got  to  reading 
and  thinking  less  and  less,  their  Infidelity  grew  more  and 
more.    He  thought  this  very  suspicious.    In  addition  to 
this,  he  discovered  that  he  himself  was  becomiDg  lop-sided. 
He  read  little  but  anti-Christian  works.     He  had  a  kind  of 
aversion  to  everything  in  fsvor  of  Religion.    When  he  did 
read  something  on  that  side,  it  was  done  with  such  preju- 
dice and  foregone  conclusioos  that  it  was  all  in  vain. 
When  he  reflected,  and  caught  himself  in  this  condition,  he 
became  uneasy.    He  knew  that  he  had  not  given  the  Bible 
and  the  Christian   religion  a  thorough  and  honest  study. 
There  he  was,  priding  himself  in  his  "reading,"  **  think- 
ing," and  "liberalism  f'  and  yet  doubting  a  system  whose 
evidences  he  had  never  examined.    He  knew  well  that  he 
could  never  be  admitted  to  the  bar  without  giving  the  law 
a  far  more  extensive  study  than  he  had  given  to  this  most 
momentous  of  questions.    He  resolved  to  reform.    He  pro- 
ceeded to  do  so.  He  procured  the  standard  works  on  Chris- 
tian evidence.    He  found  it  extremely  difficult  at  first  to 
exercise  sufficient  patience  to  read  them  through  and  digest 
them.    He  was  possessed  by  a  strong  temptation  to  dismiss 
the  whole  subject  after  glancing  superficially  over  a  few  vol- 
umes.   He  thought  he  might  then  say  he  had  read  them* 
Bat,  thanks  be  to  God  I  he  was  not  permitted  to  stop  thcr«. 
He  read  on.    He  began  to  feel  that  the  Scriptures  might 
be  true.    What  he  deemed  posmMs  at  first  soon  became  a 
probabUUif,    After  some  years  of  toil  and  meditation,  the 
probability  became  a  certainty,  as  to  the  cardinal,  essential  . 
teachings  of  Christianity.    He  had  formerly  thought  of 
practicing  law.  But  the  conviction  of  the  everlasting  truth 
of  the  Christian  Religion  impelled  him  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, and  to  use  every  lawful  means  to  defend  and  dissemi- 
nate it.    He  is  happy  in  the  work.    He  can  now  say: 


'  O  hapDV  dav  that  fixed  my  ohoioa 
On  thee,  my  8a?ior  and  my  Ood." 


XNTROPUOTIOll.  Iz 

He  has  given  this  inner  history  of  himself,  not  because  it 
is  in  itself  important,  but  because  he  believes  it  is  a  fair 
picture  of  eight-tenths  of  those  who  profess  to  be  unbe- 
lievers. Should  these  lines  and  this  discussion  furnish  a 
clue  that  will  guide  even  one  out  of  the  zigzag  labyrinth  of 
Infidelity,  the  writer  will  be  more  than  rewarded. 

G.  H.H, 

Sketch  of  D.  H.  Bennett. 

He  was  born  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  beautiful  sheet 
of  water  known  as  Otsego  Lake,  in  the  township  of  Spring- 
field, Otsego  Co.,  N.  Y.,  Dec.  23,  1818.  His  parents  were 
poor  people— his  father  an  uneducated  farmer,  his  mother  a 
member  of  the  Methodist  Church.  At  an  early  age  he  moved 
with  his  parents  into  the  villsge  of  Cooperstown,  N.  Y.  Here 
he  had  fair  opportunities  for  attending  district  school,  Sun- 
day-school, etc.  At  the  latter  he  was  a  constant  attendant, 
and  frequently,  by  voluntary  efifort,  learned  twenty  or 
thirty  verses  in  the  New  Testament  during  the  week,  and 
recited  them  to  his  teacher  on  Sunday.  He  attended 
church  regularly,  and  very  naturally  grew  up  in  the 
belief  taught  by  theologians. 

When  between  fourteen  and  fifteen  years  of  age,  return- 
ing from  a  visit  to  some  relatives  in  Berkshire  county, 
Mass.,  he  stopped  to  visit  the  Shaker  Society  in  New  Leb- 
anon, N.  Y.  They  lived  peacefully  and  happily  in  their 
beautiful  home  on  the  hill  side,  and  he  soon  became  so  much 
pleased  with  ttiem  that  he  decided  to  join  them  and  become 
one  of  their  number.  He  thought  they  lived  better  and 
happier  lives  tiian  any  people  he  had  ever  met.  They 
are  a  peculiar  people  and  have  a  somewhat  peculiar  relig- 
ious belief.  In  the  first  place,  they  are  strict  celibates,  and 
regard  the  sexual  intercourse  as  the  forbidden  fruit  which 
caused  the  fall  of  Adam  and  Eve,  and  through  them  of  the 
entire  human  race.  They  regard  Jesus  as  the  pattern  celibate 


nRBODUOnON. 


INTBODUCnOV. 


.• 


who  practiced  and  taoght  the  strictest  self-denial.  Thej 
do  not  regard  Jesus  as  Ood,  or  as  having  a  miraculous  be- 
getting. They  conceire  that  Diyinity  consists  of  two 
divisions  or  elements,  male  and  female,  father  and  mother — 
Power  and  Wisdom — ^and  that  Jesus  Christ,  nearly  nineteen 
huudred  years  ago,  represented  the  Father  element  and  Ann 
Lee,  an  English  woman,  the  wife  of  a  dissipated  black- 
smith, over  one  hundred  years  ago,  represented  the  Mother 
clement  of  divinity.  She  was  called  Mother  Ann  Lee,  and 
in  Jesus  and  herself  they  held  that  Christ  made  his  firfet  and 
second  appearing.  They  dress  in  a  plain  garb,  lead  indus- 
trious lives;  they  hold  their  property  in  common,  on  the 
community  plan,  and  dance  and  march  for  worship. 

That  society  then  consisted  of  seven  hundred  members, 
and  was  divided  into  some  eight  families,  or  lesser  com- 
munities. There  were  sixteen  societies  in  the  entire 
country,  with  a  total  membership  of  six  thousand.  In 
later  years,  however,  their  numbers  have  greatly  decreased, 
and  they  now  have  less  than  half  their  former  members. 
They  are  a  very  religious  people,  and  they  carry  their 
religion  into  their  daily  duties  and  avocations,  making  it 
an  eminently  practical  system  of  faith.  They  hold  to  the 
possibility  of  living  lives  without  fault  or  sin,  and  they 
make  it  their  object  to  attain  to  this  point  of  perfection. 
They  are  Spiritualists,  and  had  among  them  what  are  called 
**  spirit-manifestations  '*  long  before  the  "  Rochester  knock- 
iogs"  were  heard  of.  They  believe  in  spirit  protection  and 
guidance,  and  to  the  higher  spirit?  they  direct  their  prayers 
and  supplications.  They  unite  in  silent  prayer,  including 
those  before  and  after  each  meal,  at  least  eight  times  a  day. 

Beunett's  occupation  among  them  was  three  years  at 
growing  garden-seeds  and  putting  them  up  in  packages  to 
send  over  the  country,  four  years  at  shoemaking,  three 
years  at  growing  and  gathering  medical  herbs  and  roots, 
preparing  extracts,  making  syrups,  ointments  and  other 
preparations,  powdering  roots  and  herbs,  etc.,  and  three 


years  at  practicing  medicine.  He  did  not  attend  any  course 
of  medical  lectures  nor  graduate  at  any  college,  but  had  the 
benefit  of  a  fair  medical  library  and  the  advice  of  an  old. 
physician  who  had  retired  from  practice.  The  system  of 
treatment  adopted  by  the  society  was  the  Eclectic,  and  it 
proved  very  successful. 

Bennett  never  attended  college,  or  any  institution  of 
learning  above  a  common  district  school,  which  he  left  at 
the  age  of  fifteen.  Since  that  time  he  has  been  constantly 
engaged  at  some  active  business — generally  hard  work — 
affording  him  little  time  for  study  or  close  reading. 

In  1846,  having  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-seven  years, 
after  residing  thirteen  years  in  the  Shaker  society,  and  los- 
ing faith  somewhat  in  their  peculiar  creed,  and  tiring  to 
some  extent  of  their  rather  arbitrary  system  of  government, 
he  left  the  society,  in  company  with  his  sister  and  Mary 
Wicks,  who  afterwards  became  his  wife— and  who  since 
the  age  of  four  years  had  lived  with  the  Shakers— together 
with  one  or  two  other  members.  In  the  fall  of  1846 
he  was  induced  to  "go  West"  as  far  as  Brandenburg, 
Kentucky,  on  the  Ohio  river,  forty  miles  below  Louis- 
ville ;  but,  being  disappointed  in  the  nature  of  the 
business  in  which  he  had  expected  to  engage  at  that  place, 
in  the  ensuing  December  he  removed  to  Louisville,  and 
there  served  nearly  a  year  as  clerk  in  a  drug-store.  In  Jan- 
uary, 1848,  he  opened  a  drug-store  of  his  own  in  Louis- 
ville, and  conducted  it  over  eight  years,  engaging  also  in 
other  kinds  of  business  with  varying  success.  In  the 
spring  of  1855  he  sold  out  his  business  and  removed  to 
Kochester,  N.  Y.,  where  he  resided  four  years,  engaging 
in  the  sale  of  fruit-trees,  shrubbery,  etc.,  and,  afterwards, 
garden  seeds.  In  1859  he  removed  to  Cincinnati  and  bought 
a  drug  store,  which  he  conducted  till  the  autumn  of  1865, 
engaging  also,  somewhat  extensively,  in  preparing  proprie- 
tary medicines.  During  these  six  years  he  was  quite  suc- 
cessful, and  upon  selling  out  had  made  enough  to  answer 


lli 


lUTUOOUOnOH* 


during  life  for  himself  aod  wife,  had  he  not  invosted  it  in 
a  series  of  ventures  that  proved  unsuccessful.  As  it  was, 
however,  repeated  bad  investments  and  ventures  used  up 
the  earnings  of  six  years,  and  in  1866-7  he  had  managed  to 
lose  the  snug  sum  of  $30,000. 

His  religious  views  gradually  became  more  and  more 
radical  from  the  time  he  left  the  Shakers.  While  in  Louis- 
ville he  borrowed  an  Infidel  book  which  strongly  shook  his 
faith  in  theology.  A  few  years  later,  in  visiting  New  York, 
he  called  upon  Gilbert  Yale,  who  kept  radical  books  for 
sale,  and  bought  Paine's  Age  of  Reason,  Yolney*8  Huins 
and  a  number  of  small  books  and  pamphlets  of  a  similar 
character.  The  perusal  of  these  aided  materially  in  driv- 
ing from  his  mind  the  relics  of  superstition  and  ecclesias- 
ticism  that  still  lingered  there.  He  ventured  to  exercise 
free  thought,  to  take  nothing  upon  the  assertion  of  the 
priesthood,  to  accept  naught  unsustained  by  proof,  and, 
in  short,  to  do  his  own  thinking  and  to  arrive  at  his  own 
conclusions. 

His  belief  gradually  becamf  very  radical,  and  he  divested 
himself  of  nearly  all  the  sirperstitions  to  which  he  had 
once  given  his  assent.  He  lost  confidence  in  the  Bible  as 
being  a  superhuman  production,  and  while  he  saw  in  it 
good  morals  and  precepts,  fine  specimens  of  ancient  poetry 
and  literature,  he  found  in  it  also  a  great  deal  that  is  crude, 
a  great  deal  that  is  coarse  and  obscene,  a  great  deal  that  is 
untiTie,  and  but  little  that  is  adapted  to  the  present  needs 
and  conditions  of  mankind.  He  regarded  it  wholly  as  a 
human  production. 

He  threw  off  all  allegiance  to  fables,  myths  and  supersti- 
tions. He  held  himself  free  to  embrace  truth  wherever  he 
found  it,  and  to  discard  errors  and  fallacies  from  whatever 
source.  He  gradually  came  to  believe  in  the  eternality  and 
the  infinity  of  the  Universe  ;  that  it  contains  all  substances 
and  all  forces  ;  that  there  is  nothing  above  it,  below  it,  or 
outside  of  it :  that  every  result  that  has  ev^r  taken  placa 


IHTBODUOnON. 


xiU 


has  been  produced  by  natural  and  sufficient  causes,  and  that 
there  can  be  nothing  supernatural.  He  regarded  the  multi- 
tude of  gods  which  men  had  imagined,  devised  and  manu- 
factured—or in  a  word,  the  god-idea— as  the  great  central 
superstition  around  which  all  other  superstitions  have  clus- 
tered for  thousands  of  years.  He  accepted  IngersolPs 
axiom,  that  '*  there  can  be  no  liberty  on  earth  while  men 
worship  a  tyrant  in  heaven."  He  saw  that  all  that  has  been 
effected  on  this  planet  to  improve  it  and  make  it  a  happy 
dwelling-place  for  man  has  been  done  by  the  hands  of 
man,  and  that  the  gods  have  done  nothing  for  the  race,  and 
that  the  belief  in  them  has  been  one  of  the  greatest  evils 
that  has  befallen  mankind.  He  came  to  understand  that 
man's  whole  duty  is  towards  his  fellow-man,  towards  him- 
self, and  nothing  for  the  gods ;  that  he  can  do  as  little  for 
the  gods  as  they  do  for  him,  but  that  to  promote  the  hap- 
piness of  himself  and  his  fellow-beings  and  to  aid  in  ren- 
dering this  earth  a  paradise  "he  can  do  very  much  indeed. 

In  1869  Bennett  returned  to  Rochester,  remained  there 
over  a  year,  and  then  removed  to  Paris,  III.,  where  he 
resided  three  years.  For  a  year  or  more  he  was  in  the 
drug  business,  and  after  that  he  engaged  in  growing  garden 
seeds,  papering  them  and  sending  them  over  the  Western 
country.  In  1873  he  cultivated  fifty  acres  in  seeds,  and  in 
1878  seventy-five  acres.  His  means  being  limited,  he  was 
under  the  necessity  of  taking  partners,  but,  like  many  others, 
he  found  partnership  a  bad  ship  to  sail  in,  and  in  the  Fall, 
of  1873  he  was  glad  to  retire  from  the  business  with  a  loss 
of  two  years'  hard  work  and  $2,500  in  money.  His  Chris- 
tian partners  were  too  much  for  him,  and  rendered  his  con- 
tinuance in  the  firm  no  longer  desirable. 

In  the  Summer  of  1873  he  engaged  in  a  newspaper  dis- 
cussion with  two  Paris  clergymen  on  the  subject  of  prayer. 
One  of  the  local  papers  published  what  the  clergymen  had 
to  say  but  refused  to  publish  his  articles  because  of 
their  radical  character.    This  dissatisfied   Bennett,  and 


zir 


nrfBODoonoH. 


XMTBODTJOTIOH. 


XT 


made  blm  resolTe  to  tUrt  a  paper  of  hia  own  In  which  he 
could  Bay  Just  what  he  believed  to  be  trae.  It  was  this 
that  caused  him  to  start  Thb  Tbuth  Skkkkb,  and  probably 
if  that  bit  of  Christian  intolerance  had  not  been  shown 
him,  he  would  never  have  started  a  Radical  paper  and 
never  oecome  the  publisher  of  Infidel  works. 

Tub  Tbuth  Sbekkb  started  as  an  eight-page  monthly,  in 
September,  1873.    It»  early  success  was  not  remarkable, 
but   sufficient  to   induce  him    to  continue  it.     Having 
closed  out  his  business  in  f  aris,  and  perceiving  it  was  not 
Just  the  place  whence  to  issue  a  Liberal  paper,  he  looked 
•round  for  a  better  locality.    New  York  city,  the  commer- 
cial centre  of  the  country,  presented  advantages  superior  to 
any  other  locality,  and  he  resolved  to  move  his  little  paper 
there.    It  was,  perhaps,  a  bold  stop.    To  start  the  paper 
was  bold.    For  a  man  without  capital,  without  editorial  ex- 
perience, without  acquaintance  with  the  Liberal  element 
of  the  country,  and,  worse  than  all,  without  the  necessary 
ability,   to  conduct   a    Radical   Journal,  to    engage    in 
such    an    enterprise    perhaps,    evinced    more    boldness 
than  good  Judgment.     In   the    face    of    the    financial 
panic  whict  was  well  inaugurated  in  the  closing  months  of 
1873,  and  has  continued  nearly  four  years,  it  was.  at  best, 
an  unfavorable  time  to  more  a  little  unfledged  monthly  to 
the  metropolis  of  the  country.    No.  6  of  Vol.  L  was  issued 
here  in  January.  1874,  with  sixteen  pages  instead  of  the 
previous  eight.    In  1876  it  became  a  semi-monthly,  and  in 
1876  it  was  changed  to  a  weekly.    It  has  had  a  struggle  for 
existence  while  papers  with  far  more  ability  and  more  than 
lea  times  the  capital  were  failing  all  around  it.    It  is  to  be 
hoped,  however,  that  it  has  now  become  so  well  established 
that  no  serious  fears  are  to  be  entertained  for  its  continued 
existence.    In  addition  to  Thb  Tbuth  Sbbkbb,  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  books,  pamphlets,  and  tracts  have  been 
published  in  the  same  office.    If  it  cannot  be  styled  an 
instance  of  «*  divine  aid,"  it  is,  perhaps,  an  instance  where 


divinity  has  preserved  a  neutral  policy  and  kept  "hands 
off."  It  is  hoped  that  a  larger  number  of  works  will  be 
issued  from  the  same  establishment,  and  that  the  enquiring 
and  independent  minds  of  the  country  will  be  patrons  of  the 
same.  The  publisher  knows  not  how  he  can  better  dis- 
charge his  duty  towards  his  fellow-men  than  by  placing 
before  them  the  sentiments  of  truth  and  appeals  in  behalf 
of  mental  liberty.    He  has  resolved  to  devote  the  remainder 

of  his  life  to  the  good  work.  ,x   %*   « 

P,  Ht  jf. 

Truth  Sekeer  OJUe,  Oct.  1, 1877. 


V   ^' 

'      ,1 

It  ' 


■  4 


ii1 


THB 


HQMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


MR.    HUMPHRBY. 


New  York,  March  29.  1876. 
Mr.  D.  M.  Bknkett,  Dear  Sir :  As  we  huve  agreed  to 
discuss  some  matters  rela'ivc  to  iDfidelity  aad  Cliristiauiiy, 
and  as  wc  are  both  alike  i-i  being  q  die  iudi/feient  to  cere- 
mony and  red  tape,  1  will  at  once  proceed  to  prove  the 
affirmative  of  the  following  propo8iiion : 

That  belikveks  in  the  Bible  uave  done  more  foii 
Civil  Libekty  in  the  United  States  than  unbelievers. 

By  "  bt  lievers  in  the  Bible  "  is  meant  tho:ie  who  recog- 
nized the  infiiliibility  and  divine  authoriiy  of  that  book; 
and  by  the  "unbelievers"  is  meant  those  who  denied  that 
infallibility  and  repudiated  that  authority.  You  will 
scarcely  object  to  this  definition  of  the  word  "Infidel." 
Webster  defines  Infidelity  as '*  disbelief  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  S  Tiptures,  or  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity."  No 
standard  lexicographer  differs  from  this  definition. 

Having  thus  explained  terms,  I  will  proceed  at  once  to 
show  that  the  services  of  Infidels  to  American  liberty  have 
been  intinitesimally  small  compared- with  that  of  Christians. 
I  am  well  aware  that  this  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  the  per- 
sistent representations  of  Infidel  speakers  and  writers;  but 
it  can  be  demonstrated  ueveithcless. 


a 


TBB  HUMPS RET-BENNBTT  DI8CU88IOir. 


!(• 


n. 


1.  Thig  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  struggle  for  Inde- 
pendence originated  among  the  Puritans  of  New  England^ 
yes,  among  the  bated  Puritans.  It  is  true  they  did  not  start 
out  with  the  conscious  and  avowed  intention  of  securing 
their  independence.  But  it  is  noteworthy  that  they  were 
the  first  to  resist  British  oppression.  Samuel  Adams,  the 
leading  spirit  in  this  resistance,  was  a  member  of  the  Con- 
gregational Church.  His  was  a  house  of  prayer.  He  was  a 
strict  observer  of  the  Sabbath  (Bancroft's  History  of  the 
United  States,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  418-420,  Centenary  Edition). 
As  far  back  as  the  year  1768  John  Hancock  had  named  one 
of  his  sloops  "Liberty,"  indicative  of  the  spirit  of  the 
man,  and,  perhaps,  of  the  unexpressed  wish  of  his  souL 

The  Boston  Town  Meeting,  held  in  Faneuil  Hall,  Sept, 
1768,  was  an  assemblage  of  religious  people.  In  that  meet- 
ing it  was  resolved  that  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of 
Boston  will,  at  the  utmost  peril  of  their  lives  and  fortunes, 
maintain  and  defend  their  rights,  privileges,  and  immuni- 
lies;"  and  they  rteommejided  that  a  day  be  tet  apart  for  fasting 
and  prayer.  This  shows  that  the  first  citizen's  meeting  to 
remonstrate  against  tyranny  was  a  meeting,  not  of  Infidels 
but  of  Puritans. 

We  read  often  of  the  clergy  of  that  period  inspiring 
their  congregations  with  patriotism,  courage,  and  hope. 
Bancroft  says  "  the  Calvinist  ministers  nursed  the  flame  of 
piety  and  of  civil  freedom"  (Bancroft,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  499, 
687).  Where  is  the  account  of  a  "  Liberal  Club  "  doing  a 
similar  service  ? 

The  Old  Continental  Congress,  held  in  1774,  was  com- 
posed almost  entirely  of  Christian  men.  Rev.  Jacob  Duchd, 
an  Episcopalian,  was  iuvited  to  act  as  chaplain.  Franklin 
testified  afterwards  tliat  those  early  Conventions  and  Con- 
gresses were  opened  every  day  with  prayer  (Parton's  Life 
ot  Franklin,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  5734). 

The  battles  of  Lexington  and  Concord  were  fought  by 
ware  Puritans.    The  warniiifi  of  the  a|»proaching  foe  wag 


THB  HUICPHBET-BBNNETT  DISCT78BI0II.  t 

given  from  a  church  tower,  Paul  Revere  revered  Paul.  He 
was  a  believer  of  the  Gospel.  The  march  from  Cam- 
bridge to  Charleiitown  Neck  under  Col.  Prescott  was  pre- 
ceded by  prayer  by  Mr.  Langdon,  then  President  of  Harvard 
College  (Lossing's  Field  Book  of  the  Revolution,  vol.  i.,  p. 
539). 

The  »<rec<?yjir«<  declaration  of  independence — the  Meck- 
lenburg Declaration — was  made  in  May,  1776,  in  the  high- 
lands of  North  Carolina  by  a  convention  of  "  sturdy  Pres- 
byterians" (Bancroft,  vol.  iv.,  p.  575). 

All  this,  and  much  more  of  the  same  import,  had  trans- 
pired before  Thomas  Paine  published  his  * 'Common  Sense" 
in  Jan.  of  1776.  It  is  cheerfully  admitted  that  that  pam- 
phlet had  a  wonderful  effect  on  the  Colonists.  But  it  did 
not  create  the  thought  of  independence,  as  is  sometimea 
claimed.  Along  with  a  great  many  other  essays  and  pam- 
phlets of  the  same  kind,  prepared  by  "the  ablest  persona 
in  America  "  (Lossing's  Lives  of  the  Signers;  p.  246),  it 
helped  to  precipitate  an  idea  that  was  already  in  solution  in 
the  public  mind.  It  touched  off  the  magazine.  As  John 
Adams  remarked,  it  "singularly  fell  in  with  the  temper  of 
the  moment  "(Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams;  Boston, 
1854;  vol.  i.,  p.  204).  **The  idea  of  independence  was  fa- 
miliar among  the  common  people  much  earlier  than  some 
people  pretend"  (Ibid;  vol.  ix.,  p.  598).  Patrick  Henry— 
who,  though  not  a  church  member,  was  so  far  a  Christian 
that  he  relished  Butler's  "Analogy  "  and  Doddridge's  "  Rise 
and  Progress,"  and  published  at  his  own  expense  Jenyns' 
*'  Internal  Evidences  of  Christianity  "  (Sparks*  Am.  Biog- 
rat)hy,  vol.  xi.,  p.  384)— as  early  as  1763  and  1765  had 
given  utterance  to  sentiments  that  caused  the  royalists  to 
cry  out  "  Treason  t  Treason  1"  Samuel  Adams,  Richard 
Henry  Lee,  Benjamin  Franklin,  Rev.  Timothy  D wight 
(Lives  of  the  Signers,  p.  244),  Gen.  Greene,  Gen.  Washing- 
ton (Bancroft,  vol.  v.,  p.  63),  and  many  others,  had  talked 
-yf  Absolute  separation  from  the  mother  country  before 


m 


THE  HUMPHREY  BENNETT  DISCUSSION 


101 


Paine^s  pamphlet  ever  saw  the  light.  In  the  words  of  Ban- 
croft, "  The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  silently  but 
steadily  prepared  in  the  con^ctions  of  all  the  people,  just 
as  every  spire  of  grass  is  impearled  by  the  dew,  and  reflect9 
the  morning  sun"  (Bancroft,  vol.  v.,  p.  165). 

2.  The  affirmative  of  this  proposition  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  the  foreigners  who  came  to  our  assistance  were 
nearly  all  believers  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  De  Ealb  was 
m  Protestant  (Bancroft,  vol.  iv.,  p.  40).  It  is  well  known  that 
Lafayette,  Pulaski,  and  Kosciusko  were  Catholics.  Steuben 
was  a  Lutheran  (Sparks'  American  Biography,  vol.  ix.,  p. 
84).  Bat  where  was  the  Infidel  that  crossed  the  sea  to  lead  ■ 
the  provincial  patriots  against  the  British  troops  ? 

The  Englishmen  who  advocated  the  cause  of  the  Amer 
icans  in  the  presence  of  the  Crown  were  all  believers  in  the 
Christian  religion.  I  refer  especially  to  Col.  Barre,  Chat- 
ham, Camden,  and  Burke.  No  Freethinker  in  the  House 
of  Lords  or  in  the  House  of  Commons  raised  his  voice  in 
our  behalf. 

8.  In  further  proof  of  my  position  I  wiH  remind  you  of 
the  fact  that  the  masses  of  the  Colonists  were  believers  in 
Christianity.  An  avowed  Infidel  in  the  American  army 
was  regarded  as  an  exception  and  a  monstrosity.  The  bat- 
tles of  the  Revolution  were  waged  by  soldiers  who  read 
their  Bibles  in  the  camp,  and  exercised  faith  in  God. 

The  best  generals  of  the  Revolution  accepted  the  Bible  as 
the  word  of  the  Lord.  This  is  notably  true  of  Prescott, 
Warren,  Putnam,  Greene,  Knox.  Morgan,  Wayne,  Lincoln, 
and  their  commander-in-chief,  George  Washington.  W© 
have  already  named  Lafayette,  Steuben,  Pulaski,  Koscius 
ko,  and  De  Kalb.  Who  was  the  Infidel  general  that  ren- 
dered any  service  to  the  Colonies  ?  Benedict  Arnold,  who 
was  irreligious,  was  a  traitor.  Charles  Lee,  the  Freethinker, 
proved  unfaithfuL 

Robert  Morris,  the  great  financier  of  that  period,  had  an 


THE  HUMPHBEY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION.  Q 

unswerving  faith  in  the  principles  inculcated  in  Holy  Writ. 
Bo  had  his  eminent  friend,  Gouverneur  Morris. 

The  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  were  re- 
ligious men.  Benson  J.  Lossing,  Esq.,  the  well-known  au- 
thor, who  has  been  for  many  years  a  careful  student  of 
American  history  and  biography,  said  recently  in  a  private 
letter:  *'  I  believe,  from  internal  evidence,  that  every  signer 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  a  practical  Chris- 
tian, such  as  Christ  accepts  as  his  worthy  children.  They, 
of  course,  differed  in  their  theological  notions,  but  not  in 
their  religious  convictions.  Some  of  them  were  church 
members,  and  some  were  not."  That  this  is  true,  without 
excepting  Franklin  and  Jefferson,  I  will  show  in  my  next. 

Soon  after  the  close  of  the  war,  Congress  appointed  Dec. 
13,  1781,  as  a  day  of  "Thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God  for 
the  signal  success  of  the  American  arms. "  Previous  to  that 
**  when  the  letters  of  Washington  announcing  the  capitula- 
tion reached  Congress,  that  body,  with  the  people  streaming 
in  their  train,  went  in  procession  to  the  Dutch  Lutheran 
church  to  return  thanks  to  Almighty  God  "  (Bancroft,  vol. 
vi ,  p.  429,).  Most  assuredly,  then,  the  American  people 
were  in  the  main  religious. 

These  remarks  are  suggestive  rather  than  exhaustive.  The 
service  of  Christians  to  the  cause  of  independence,  as  com- 
pared with  that  of  Infidels,  was  as  a  thousand  to  one. 

I  have  given  many  references,  as  I  intend  to  continue  do- 
ing, in  order  that  you  and  our  readers  may  verify  eve^-y 
statement.  I  shall  endeavor  to  give,  as  I  shall  demand,  au- 
thority  and  proof.  Yours,  very  respectfully, 

G.  H.  Humphrey. 


MR.    BBIVNBTT. 

Rev.  G.  H.  Humphrey,  Dear  JSir:    1  have  never  thought 
for  a  moment,  nor  do  I  think  any  intelligent  Liberal  has 


rn  i 


I 

,,  Ui  r 


lift 


I 


*!'lf 


:i!Ji 


'HI 
I 


< 


»■ 


0  THE  HUMPERBT-BENNETT  DISCC83IOH. 

€ver  clftimed.  that  a  majority  of  the  officers,  or  of  the  rank 
and  file  engaged  in  the  Revolutionary  struggle  were  Infidels 
or  unbelieTOFS  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible.  If  a  census 
had  then  been  taken  on  that  question,  or  a  vote  given,  the 
Bible  worshipers  on  the  one  side  and  the  unbelievers  on  the 
other.  I  admit  that  the  believers  would  have  had  a  very 
large  majority— perhaps  ninety  or  ninety-five  per  cent  of  the 
whole  number.  Unfortunately,  since  the  earliest  history  of 
mankind,  the  believers  in  fetishes,  myths,  superstitious 
mysticisms,  fables,  and  errors  of  all  kinds,  have  far  out- 
numbered the  opposite  class.  Truth  has  ever  been  in  a 
minority.  It  was  so  one  hundred  years  ago.  It  is  so  to- 
day. Bat,  thanks  to  the  light  of  science  and  the  inherent 
love  of  the  Right  which  exists  in'man's  nature,  the  truth  is 
gaining  ground.  The  myths  and  superstitions  of  former 
centuries,  with  their  tyrannous  rule,  are  retiring  to  the  rear, 
and  truth,  reason,  and  mental  liberty  arc  coming  to  the 
front  and  assuming  control.  They  are  unmistakably  gaining 
grruod,  and  in  another  hundred  years  it  is  confidently 
hoped  that  theological  delusions  and  errors  will  have  far 
less  sway,  not  only  in  this  country  but  in  the  civilized 
world,  than  ihey  had  one  hundred  yeais  ago.  The  powers 
of  light  and  truth  are  x>otent,  and  we  have  much  to  hope 
for  from  ihem. 

I  freely  accord  patriotism,  love  of  liberty,  and  hatred  of 
tyranny  to  thousands  of  zealous  Christians  who  were  en- 
gaged in  that  struggle.  They  fought  bravely  for  American 
independence,  and  I  would  not  take  one  laurel  from  their 
brows.  I  honor  them  for  what  they  did  in  the  cause  of  hu- 
man liberty.  Tliey  were  impelled  by  the  noblest  impulses 
that  move  the  human  heart.  If  the  same  credit  was  gen. 
erously  awarded  to  the  nn  bell  vers  that  were  engaged  in  the 
same  struggle,  this  discussion  would  hardly  be  necessary. 
We  would  hear  much  fewer  aspersions  and  slanderous  as- 
sertions about  •*  Tom  Paine  "  and  the  **  Infidel  crew,"  and 
Ihey  would  be  cheerfully  credited  on  all  hands  with  the 


THE  HUMPflRET-BBNNETT  DISCnSSION.  7 

great  deeds  they  performed,  and  a  nation's  gratitude  and 
honor,  to  which  they  are  so  justly  entitled,  would  be  extended 
to  them,  instead  of  being  grudgingly  and  meanly  withheld  as 
now. 

While  I  yield  that  Bible-believcrs  greatly  predominated 
in  point  of  numbers  in  the  American  struggle,  I  claim  that 
the  leading  spirits,  the  men  who  did  the  most  to  arouse  the 
people  of  ihe  Colonies,  to  stimulate  their  courage  and  res- 
olutioo  after  the  conflict  was  inaugurated,  and  when  dark 
despair  settled  over  the  land;  who  directed  the  armies; 
whu  made  personal  sacrifices  to  keep  up  the  struggle,  and 
who  gave  form  and  direction  to  the  Constitution  and  policy 
of  the  new  government  when  the  war  was  over,  were  Infi- 
dels, or  men  who  did  not  believe  that  the  Bible  was  written 
by  the  finger  of  God,  or  by  his  immediate  dictation.  I  al 
lude  to  suck  men  as  Benjamin  Franklin,  George  Washing- 
ton, Eihan  Allen,  Anthony  Wayne,  Thomas  Paine,  John 
Adams.  Thomas  Jefferson,  Gouverneur  Morris,  Benjamin 
Rush,  Arron  Burr,  Alexander  Hamilton,  James  Madison, 
etc.,  etc.  These  men  did  not  accept  the  Christian  dogma 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  God  and  the  Supreme  Power  of  the  Uni- 
verse; hence  they  were  Infidels. 

While  I  admit  that  Christians  acquitted  themselves  nobly 
in  that  glorious  struggle,  I  claim  that  Infidels  did  the  same, 
and  did  more  in  •proportion  to  their  numbers  than  did  the 
believers,  and  this  is  all  that  ought  to  be  demanded  of  them. 
I  claim,  too,  that  the  war  for  American  independence  was 
not  a  Christian  struggle,  and  that  the  impulses  and  senti- 
ments which  actuated  the  infant  nation— hatred  of  tyranny 
and  oppression,  the  spirit  of  freedom  and  independence- 
are  not  peculiar  to  Christians.  Tiiey  are  the  natural,  spon- 
taneous impulses  of  humanity.  Man,  in  all  ages  of  the 
world,  in  all  countries,  and  under  all  systems  of  religion 
has  fought  and  bled  and  died  for  liberty  and  the  right  of 
self  government. 
While  men  of  all  castes  and  colors  have  aspired  to  free- 


*l 


.' 


!l 


mil 


•  I 


ml 

iij! 


^4. 


4|-t.. 


§  THB  HUMFBBBT-BBNNSTT  DISCUSSION. 

dom,  while  they  have  fought  for  liberty;  while  men  of  all 
creeds  have  detested  tyranny  in  their  very  souls,  the  dis- 
tinctive inculcation  of  Christianity  has  been  ^*  submit "  and 
"obey."  Its  principal  teachers  have  enjoined  rules  like 
these:  "Servants  obey  your  masters,"  "Obey  the  magis- 
trates." **Obey  them  that  have  rule  over  you,"  "Let  your 
soul  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers,"  "  Render  unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar's/'  "The  powers  that  be  are  or- 
dained of  God.  Whosoever,  therefore,  resisteth  the  powers 
resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God,  and  they  that  resist  re- 
ceive unto  themselves  damnation.  Wherefore,  ye  must 
be  subject,  not  only  for  wrath  but  also  for  conscience'  sake. 
For  this  cause,  pay  ye  tribute  also,  for  they  are  God's  min- 
isters, attending  continually  upon  this  very  thing"  (Rom., 
xiii.,  1-6).  "  Submit  yourself  to  every  ordinance  of  man 
for  the  Lord's  sake,  whether  it  be  to  the  king,  as  supreme, 
or  unto  governors"  (1  Peter,  il.,  13). 

According  to  these  imperative  icjunctions,  the  American 
colonists  were  not  only  in  a  state  of  rebellion  against  the 
parent  government,  but  also  against  heaven.    They  had 
practically  ceased  to  be  Christians.    They  had  become  In- 
fidels, for  to  question  or  doubt  what  the  priesthood  declares 
to  be  the  will  of  heaven  is  infidelity  of  the  rankest  kind. 
When  they  dared  to  raise  their  hands  and  strike  for  their 
liberties,  they  were  opposing  the  will  of  God.    Every  king, 
every  tyi^int  that  ever  reigned  over  an  oppressed  people, 
cither  under  the  Hebrew  or  the  Christian  regime^  claimed  to 
rule  by  the  express  command  of  God.    They  were   the 
anointed  of  heaven,  and  to  rebel  against  them  was  to  rebel 
against  God.    The  American  colonies,  when  they  resisted 
the  power  of  Great  Britain,  opposed  such  a  power.    They 
opposed  the  first  Christian  power  in  the  world— a  nation 
whose  kings  and  queens  reigned  by  the  "grace  of  God." 
I  repeat,  it  was  an  un-Ohrutian  war  to  oppose  the  first 
Christian  nation  on  earth,  whose  monarchs  niled  by  a  di- 
vine commission  from  on  high,  and  whose  coronations  were 


presided  over  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  highest 
Christian  dignitary  in  the  realm.  I  tell  you  it  was  the  t&- 
■beUion  of  In^idelitf/  that  made  the  American  people  raise  their 
arms  against  such  a  dlvhiely-commissioned  power.  True, 
Catholics  and  Protestants  came  over  to  help  us,  but  they 
came  to  fight  the  battle  of  In^delity  against  Christian  tyran. 
ny,  and  this  truth  cannot  be  successfully  denied.  Most  truly 
<did  IngersoU  exclaim,  "Infidelity  is  liberty;  all  religion  is 
slavery.  In  every  creed,  man  is  the  slave  of  God;  woman 
is  the  slave  of  man,  and  the  sweet  children  are  the  slaves  of 
«UI" 

While  the  Christian  government  of  G^reat  Britain  was 
sending  over  its  thousands  of  creed-bound  serfs  to  crush 
into  the  chains  of  bondage  a  youthful  and  struggling  peo> 
pie  who  dared  aspire  to  be  free,  the  first  Infidds  of  England 
«nd  France  sympathiced  with  the  colonists  and  did  all  l^ey 
could  for  their  cause  by  pen,  money,  and  valor.  While  this 
was  true,  how  was  it  with  the  great  light  of  Christian  Prot- 
estantism, in  England,  John  Wesley  f  He  opposed  the 
American  struggle  with  all  his  power.  He  wrote  against  it, 
he  preached  against  it,  and  be  labored  against  it  publicly 
and  privately.  England  had  no  deadlier  foe  to  American 
freedom  than  was  John  Wesley,  the  pious  apostle  of  the 
Church,  and  the  founder  of  Methodism. 

You  mention  instances  of  marches  and  other  opera- 
iiovB  during  the  war  being  preceded  by  prayer.  Doubtless 
it  was  so,  but  that  does  not  prove  very  much.  A  devout 
Mohammedan  prays  regularly  six  times  a  day,  and  always 
with  his  face  turned  towards  his  holy  city,  Mecca. 
Many  of  the  acts  of  his  life-time  are  preceded  by  prayer. 
Does  that  make  him  a  Christian  t  The  pious  Hindoo 
mother  who  throws  her  infant  to  her  crocodile-god  in  the 
Ganges  always  precedes  the  act  by  prayer.  Does  that 
make  her  a  Christian  ?  When  two  opposing  Christian 
armies  are  about  to  engage  in  a  bloody  conflict,  and  both 
{«eoede  the  sanguiaaiy  work  by  prayer  asking  for  vlctoiy« 


THM  HUMPgB»T'BaanmT  DISCUBMOW, 


THE  SXTMPHBBT-BBKNSTT  DIBCUBSIOV. 


11 


t 


ft 


w 


and  both  beg  for  God  to  help  them,  U  it  not  calculated  to  em- 
barrass their  God  to  decide  how  to  answer  the  prayerff 
of  both,  and  to  determine  which  side  to  help  the  most? 
Bonaparte  used  to  insist  that  God  was  on  the  side  ol 
the  strongest  battalions,  and  oiher  observing  persons  have- 
come  to  the  same  conclusion,  If  Col.  Prescott  had  pre- 
ceded his  march  from  Cambridge  to  Gharlestown  Neck  by 
a  lively  game  of  ''old  sledge,"  or  had  he  induced  hi» 
men  to  join  lustily  in  singing  ••  Yankee  Doodle,"  is  it  not 
barely  possible  that  it  would  have  answered  just  as  good 
a  purpose  as  Mr.  Langdon's  prayer  t  Would  not  the  sol. 
diers  have  made  the  march  lust  as  cheerfully  and  as  ex- 
peditiously f 

Among  the  generals,  patriots,  and  statesmen  who  wer» 
in  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  it  is  not  claimed  that  aU 
had  arrived  at  the  same  degree  of  unbelief  or  Infidelity, 
It  is  conceded  that  Jeflferson  and  Paine  were  more  pro- 
nounced and  outspoken  in  their  radicalism  and  unbelief 
than  were  Franklin  and  Washington,  but  all  disbelieved 
and  denied  the  dogmas  upon  which  the  Christian  Churclk 
is  founded— that  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  the  Supreme  Powep 
of  the  Universe— and  that  he  penned  or  dictated  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  Scriptures.  They  denied  that  one  person 
could  be  three,  and  that  three  persons  could  be  one,  and 
that  three  and  one  are  the  same.  Rejecting  these  cardinal 
tenets  in  the  Christian  Church,  they,  of  course,  could  not 
be  Christians,  and  must,  of  necessity,  be  ranked  amonie 
the  Infidels. 

You  may  attempt  to  prove  that  these  were  all  Christian! 
because  in  some  respects  they  acted  with  the  Christians, 
not  even  excepting  Jefferson.  We  hope,  at  all  events,  that 
you  will  leave  us  Ethan  Allen  and  Thomas  Paine.  I  aslK 
you  not  to  make  ChrisUana  of  them.  It  seems,  too,  that 
after  Thomas  Jefferson  has  been  a  thousand  times  denounced 
as  an  Infidel,  from  almost  every  pulpit  ia  this  land— 
both   before  and  aftes    his   eleeUoA   a»    Fresident-yott 


will  find  it  a  little  laborious  to  make  it  clear  to  the  com- 
mon perception  that  he  was  a  Christian  in  full  command 
ion.  If  you  can  make  a  clear  case  of  it,  I  shall  watch 
your  efforts  with  interest.  He  was  quite  as  decided  an  In- 
fidel as  Paine,  and  was  never  afraid  of  having  his  views 
upon  theology  known.  There  will  be  no  trouble  in  show- 
ing this  from  his  own  writings.  I  have  not  room  in  this 
article  to  go  into  these  quotations,  but  will  in  my  next, 
when  I  think  I  can  also  show  that  Washington  entertained 
the  same  theological  views  that  Jefferson  did,  and  that  the 
Bev.  Br.  Abercrombie,  rector  of  the  church  in  Philadel- 
phia which  Washington  frequently  attended  during  the 
time  that  that  city  was  the  seat  of  government,  and  who 
was  acquainted  with  Washington's  views,  admitted  that  the 
General  was  a  Deist.  Deists,  of  course,  are  Infidels. 
Thomas  Paine  was  only  a  Deist.  I  think  I  can  show  that 
Franklin  was  also  a  Deist. 

I  am  well  aware  that  Christian  biographers  and  pious  ad- 
ulators have  made  great  efforts  to  show  that  Washington 
was  a  Christian;  that  he  was  a  sanctimonious  man,  and  that 
he  preceded  his  engagements  on  the  battle-field  by  prayer; 
that  it  was  discovered  that  upon  a  certain  occasion  he  retired 
into  a  thicket  to  pray;  but  the  stories  lack  confirmation,  and 
is  too  much  like  the  Sunday-school  story  about  the  cherry 
tree  and  his  little  hatchet,  in  which  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  tell  a  lie— a  story,  by  the  way,  first  told  by  a 
clergyman. 

The  truth  is,  Washington  has  been  so  far  deified  by  an 
admiring  American  people,  and  we  have  grown  up  from  our 
infancy  with  the  impressions  implanted  upon  our  minds 
that  he  was  a  model  man,  a  great  and  good  personage,  far 
superior  to  any  other  who  lived  at  the  same  time,  that  he 
is  cxalled  into  a  demi-god  who  could  not  tell  a  lie,  who  could 
not  use  a  profane  word,  and  who  was  almost  perfection  it- 
self. This  is  all  an  error.  It  is  true  rather  that  he  had  his  faults 
and  failings  like  other  men.    He  oould  not  only  use  duplic 


18 


*"H»  HUMFHrnST-BKBTHBTT  DISOlTSBIOff 


THE  HXJMPHKET-BENIJETT  DIflCUSSION. 


13 


111' 


ity  and  strategy  wlian  neceastrjr,  but  he  could  swear 
"like  a  trooper.'*  Those  who  were  well  acquainted  with 
him  pronounced  him  a  profane  man  who  often  gave  way  to 
passion,  who  was  aristocratic  and  almost  unapproachable  to 
his  inferiors,  and  who  often  showed  a  species  of  tyran- 
ny and  cruelty.  Still,  the  eminent  services  which  he  ren- 
dered  his  country  should  be  duly  acknowledged  and  re- 
membered, but  not  on  the  false  ground  that  he  was  a 
ChrisUan.  d.  m.  Bbhhktt. 


Mb.  D.  M.  BwfKvn,  Dmr  Sir:  I  am  pleased  with  the 
courteousness  of  your  reply,  and  with  your  candor  in  ad 
mitting  the  substance  of  my  last  letter.  Your  concession 
amounts  to  this:  that,  in  the  proportion  that  "ninety  oi 
ninety.flve  per  cent "  is  greater  than  ten  or  five  per  cent, 
the  Christians  who  resisted  British  tyranny  were  more 
numerous  than  the  Infidels  who  did  the  same. 

You  assert  that  resistance  to  constituted  government, 
even  when  it  is  oppressive  and  inhuman,  is  contrary  to  the 
principles  of  Scripture.  This  Is  an  error.  Bach  passages 
as  "Be  subject  to  principalities  and  powers,"  "Subject 
yourselves  unto  kings  or  governors."  "  Render  unto  Casar 
the  things  that  are  Casar's,"  mean  simply  that  the  Christian 
should  not  be  anarchical;  he  should  be  a  law-abiding  citi- 
zen. There  is  no  intimation  in  the  Old  Testament  that  the 
Israelites  violated  the  Divine  law  when  they  threw  oflP  the 
Egyptian  yoke.  Nor  is  there  a  hint  In  the  New  that  Jesua 
did  wrong  in  ignoring  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim. 

I  was  rather  surprised  to  see  you  making  such  hit-or-misi 
assertions  respecting  the  religious  opinions  of  certain  per- 
sons prominent  in  the  Revolution.  Of  course.  Thomaa 
Paine  is  yielded  to  you.  So  is  Ethan  Allen.  But  I  insist 
that  Mitffidof  the  others  whom  you  oeme  was  an  Infidel  ii 


the  true  sense  of  that  word.  Benjamin  Rush  was  univer- 
sally known  as  an  eminently  pious  Christian.  His  "Essays** 
put  this  beyond  the  reach  of  a  doubt.  The  New  American 
Cyclopedia  says  of  him  that  in  1791  "he  wrote  an  able  de- 
fense of  the  Bible  as  a  school-book.  He  was  Vice  Presi- 
dent, until  his  death,  of  the  Philadelphia  Bible  Society,  of 
which  he  was  one  of  the  earliest  originators,  and  the  con- 
stitution of  which  he  drafted."  Parton  says  of  Aaron  Burr 
that  "  he  was  no  scoffer.  He  was  desirous,  while  condemn- 
ing the  severe  theology  of  his  fathers,  not  to  be  thought  an 
unbeliever"  (Life  of  Aaron  Burr.  vol.  ii,  pp.  274-329). 
Alexander  Hamilton  was  a  believer  in  Christianity.  In  a 
paper  prepared  in  view  of  his  duel  with  Burr  he  said:  •*My 
religious  and  moral  principles  are  strongly  opposed  to  the 
practice  of  duelling  "  (Morse's  Life  of  Hamilton,  Boston, 
1876,  vol.  ii,  p.  364).  He  sent  for  a  clergyman  to  adminis- 
ter  the  sacrament  to  him  before  his  death  (A  Collection  of 
Facts  and  Documents  relative  to  the  Death  of  Alexander 
Hamilton,  1804,  pp.  47-56).  Morse  says:  "He  was  a  sin- 
cere and  earnest  Christian.  He  had  lately  said  of  Chris- 
tianity in  his  firm,  positive  way:  *I  have  studied  it,  and  1 
can  prove  its  truth  as  clearly  as  any  proposition  ever 
submitted  to  the  mind  of  man* "  (Life  of  Hamilton,  voL  ii,  p. 
870).  If  you  want  to  find  proof  that  Qouverneur  Morris  was 
not  an  Infidel,  I  will  refer  you  to  his  *  'Life,"  by  Jared  Sparks, 
vol.  i.  pp.  508-9,  vol.  iii,  p.  44.  A  careful  examination  of 
such  works  as  Rives*  Life  and  Times  of  James  Madison 
will  compel  any  one  to  see  that  our  fourth  President  was 
very  far  from  being  a  rejecter  of  Christianity. 

The  four  persons  who  played  the  most  active  part  in  the 
Revolutionary  struggle,  and  in  the  formation  of  the  govern- 
ment afterwards,  are  often  claimed  by  Infidels,  and  too  fre- 
quently conceded  to  them  by  Christians.  I  refer  to  Wash- 
ington, Jefferson,  Franklin,  and  John  Adams.  Let  us  now 
throw  aside  as  so  much  rubbish  the  "Sabbath-school 
stories*'  and  religious  magazine  paragraphs,  and  also  the 


14 


THE  HUMPHRBT-BENNEIT  DISCUSSION. 


"Liberal  Club"  traditioofl,  with  all  the  Infidel  newspaper 
tales  respectiug  these  persons,  and  let  us  try  to  determine 
from  their  own  writings  and  from  standard  biographers  what 
their  religious  opinions  really  were.  Let  us  consider  them 
in  the  order  of  their  birth. 

As  Benjamin  Franklin  was  the  oldest,  we  will  examine 
his  religious  belief  first  There  are  several  trustworthy 
Liyes  of  Franklin  before  the  public.  The  most  recent  is 
that  of  Bigelow.  But  aa  Parton's  is  in  all  essential  matters 
in  agreement  witu  the  rest,  and  as  Mr.  Parton  is  a  '*  liberal*' 
man,  we  will  refer  chiefly  to  him.  AU  biographers  get 
their  materials  mainly  from  Franklin's  Works,  of  which 
there  is  an  admirable  collection  edited  by  Sparks,  Boston, 
1840. 

Franklin  was  raised  under  reHgious  iDfluences.  When  a 
mere  boy  he  left  home  to  make  his  own  living.  Before 
leaving  his  teens  he  had  read  Shaftesbury,  Collins,  and  other 
Deistical  writers.  They  shook  his  mind.  When  about 
nineteen  he  wrote  and  published  a  **  Dissertation  on  Lib- 
erty  and  Necessity."  Its  conclusions  were  that  there  is  no 
inherent  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice,  and  that  man 
is  really  under  the  reign  of  Fate.  But,  as  Lossing  says, 
*' Franklin  always  looked  back  to  those  early  efforts  of  his 
pen,  in  opposition  to  Christian  ethics,  with  great  regret " 
(Lives  of  Celebrated  Americans,  p.  40).  He  afterwards  did 
all  he  could  to  gather  every  copy  of  his  "  Dissertation,"  and 
annihilate  it  forever  (Parton'e  Life  of  Franklin,  vol.  i,  p. 
182).  But  it  is  on  the  strength  of  this  treatise  that  Franklin 
is  claimed  as  an  Infidel  1  We  might  as  justly  sum  up  Col. 
Ingersoirs  life,  and  say  he  was  a  drunkard  and  a  Democrat, 
because  there  has  been  a  period  when  he  was  both. 

When  twenty-two  he  reconsidered  his  position  and 
retraced  his  steps.  He  passed  through  what  Parton  calls  a 
•'regeneration"!  He  drew  up  a  creed  and  a  liturgy  for 
himself  (Parton's  Life  of  Franklin,  vol.  i,  pp.  167-178). 
When  twenty-three  he  called  "Atheism  "  "  nonsense,*'  and 


THE  HUMPHREY  -BENNETT  DISCX3SBI0N. 


15 


pronounced  "the  Christian  religion  the  best  of  all  relig- 
Ions"  (Ibid,  vol.  i,  pp.  192-3).    When  fifty-eight  he  advised 
and  urged  his  daughter  to  "  go  constantly  to  Church,'  to 
•be  devout,  and  "never  miss  the  prayer  days"  i}h\A,  vol.  i, 
456).    When  sixty-seven  he  styled  himself  a  "Protestant  of 
the  Church  of  England,  holding  in  the  highest  venera- 
tion the  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ^'  (Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  657). 
When  eighty  he  asked:  "  If  men  are  so  wicked  twY/l  religion, 
what  would  they  be  wiChmt  it  ?"  He  advised  a  Freethinker 
not  to  publish  an  Infidel  work  (Ibid,  vol.  ii,  p.  654).    In  the 
Convention  of  1787,  when  he  wps  eighty-one,  he  made  this 
motion,  ".That  henceforth  prayers,  imploring  the  assistance 
of  Heaven  and  its  blessings  on  our  deliberations,  be  held  in 
this  Assembly  every  morning  before  we  proceed  to  business; 
and  that  one  or  more  of  the  clergy  of  this  city  be  requested 
to  officiate  in  that  service." 

In  tne  course  of  his  remarks  in  support  of  this  motion  he 
«aid:  "In  this  situation  of  this  Assembly,  gropmg,  as  it 
were,  in  the  dark  to  find  political  truth,  and  scarce  able  to 
distinguish  It  when  presented  to  us,  how  has  it  happened. 
Sir  that  we  have  not  hitherto  once  thought  of  humbly  ap- 
plying  to  the  Father  of  Lights  to  illuminate  our  understend- 
ings?    In  the  beginning  of  the  contest  with  Britain,  when 
we  were  sensible  of  danger,  we  had  daily  prayers  in  this 
room  for  the  Divine  protection.    Our  prayers.  Sir,  were 
heard ;  and  they  were  graciously  answered.    All  of  us  who 
were  engaged  in  the  struggle,  must  have  observed  frequent 
instances  of  a  superintending  Providence  in  our  favor.    To 
ihat  kind  Providence  we  owe  this  opportunity  of  consulting 
In  peace,  and  the  means  of  establishing  our  future  national 
felicity.    And  have  we  now  forgotten  that  powerful  Friend? 
or  do  we  imagine  we  no  longer  need  Its  assistance?    I  have 
lived  Sir,  a  long  time;  and  the  longer  I  live,  the  more  con- 
vincing  proofs  I  see  of  this  truth:  Thai  God  governs  in  ihs 
<iffairs  of  men*'  (Ibid,  vol.  ii,  p.  573). 

When  eighty-four  he  gave  a  summary  of  his  creed  in  these 


THH   H UMFlUtBT-BBRM ETI'  DrSCUSSTOIT. 


i 


words:  •*  I  believe  in  one  God,  the  Creator  of  the  Universei. 
Thai  h6  govwns  it  by  hi«  Providence.    That  he  ought  to  be 
worshiped.    That  the  mosl  acceptable  service  to  him  ia  do- 
ing good  to  Ms  other  children.    That  the  soul  of  man  i» 
immortal,  and  will  be  treated  with  Justice  in  another  life 
rcspectiag  its  conduct   in  lias."    He  was  undecided  in 
fcgard  to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but  thought  there  was  no 
larm  in  believing  that  doctrine  (vol.  ii.  p.  G15-616).    When 
eighty-five,  and  near  his  death,  "  he  had  a  picture  of  Christ 
on  the  Cross  placed  so  that  he  could  conveniently  look  al 
it  as  he  lay  in  bed.    •  That,'  he  woitld  say,  '  is  the  picture 
•f  one  who  came  into  the  world  to  teach  men  ta  love  one^ 
mother'  *•  (Ibid,  p.  6ia>.  And  "his  last  look,  it  is  recorded^ 
was  cast  upon  the  picture  of  Christ  **  (Ibid,  p.  619). 

Can  jGOy  my  dear  Sir,  have  the  hardihood  to  assert  that  ft 
■mn  who  lived  such  a  life,  and  died  such  a  death,  was  aa 
Infidel  ?  Can  you  impugn  the  authorities  to  which  I  have 
leferred  you  ?  Would  it  not  be  better  to  reject  the  floating 
gossip  that  Franklin  was  a  Deist,,  and  accredit  the  facts  of 
hiatary—thAi  he  was  a  skeptic  only  in  his  niinorityj 
Ihat  when  he  became  a  man,  he  renounced  his  skepticism; 
and  that  he  drifted  farther  and  farther  from  it  wntil  the  end 
•f  his  lifer 

In  regard  to  Washington  I  will  say  but  a  word.  You  say 
lie  was  a  Deist  The  only  evidence  you  furnish  is  the  testi- 
mony of  Dr.  Abercrombie;  and  that  testimony  does  not 
come  direct,  but  in  a  roundabout  way  which  makes  it  very 
unreliable.  Robert  Dale  Owen  said  that  •*  Dr.  Wikon"  said 
that  Dr.  Abercrombie  said  that  Washington  was  a  Deist  t 
Thomas  Piune  "did  not  choose  to  rest  his  belief  on  such  evi- 
dence" as  "hearsay  upon  hearsay.*'  How  is  it  that  you, 
the  disciple,  are  more  credulous  than  your  master  I  The 
explanation  is  easy:  This  story  about  Abercrombie— more 
▼ague  than  the  legend  of  the  little  hatchet— is  the  only  scrap 
ef  proof  that  you  can  produce  from  all  the  libraries  el  thft 
wcdd  that  Waahington  was  a  Deist  i 


THE  humphhey-bknnett  discussion. 


17 


The  truth  is,  Washington  was  a  strictly  moral  and  highly 
leligious  man.  He  prohibited  card-playing,  gaming,  drink- 
ing, and  profanity  among  his  troops.  If  divine  services 
were  missed  necessarily  on  Sunday,  he  would  introduce 
them  at  the  earliest  opportunity  on  a  week  day.  He  recom- 
mended a  special  meeting  for  prayer  and  thanksgiving  after 
the  capitulation  at  Yorktown.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  fast- 
ing. He  made  it  a  rule  to  attend  church  on  the  Sabbath. 
In  a  letter  dated  Aug.  20,  1778,  he  said:  "The  hand  of 
Providence  has  been  so  conspicuous  in  all,  that  he  must  be 
worse  than  ^n  Infidel,  that  lacks  faith,  and  more  than  wicked, 
that  has  not  gratitude  to  acknowledge  his  obligations."  He 
regarded  "  Religion  and  Morality  as  the  essential  pillars  of 
civil  society."  These  statements  are  not  old  wives*  fables. 
You  will  find  undeniable  authority  for  all  of  them  if  you 
will  look  over  Washington's  Writings,  edited  by  Sparks, 
Boston,  1835.  See,  in  particular,  vol.  ii,  pp.  141, 167, 406;  voL 
iv,  p.  28;  vol.  v,  p.  88;  vol  viii,  p.  J  89;  vol.  xii,  pp.  245, 
400,  402.  Irving  testifies  that,  in  early  life,  he  led  prayer- 
meetings,  and  that  under  special  difficulties  (Life  of  Wash- 
ington, Leipzig,  1869,  vol.  i,  p.  109).  Weems,  who  was  in- 
timately acquainted  with  Washington,  bears  witness  that  he 
was  a  devout  and  godly  man  (Life  of  Washington,  1837,  pp. 
174-189).  You  must  rebut  these  authorities  with  stronger 
authorities,  or  else  admit  that  the  Father  of  his  Country 
was  far  from  being  an  Infidel. 

Space  compels  me  to  defer  my  discussion  of  Adams  and 
Jefferson  until  my  next  Very  respectfully, 

G.  H.  HUMPHBBT. 


HK.   BBirVBSTT. 


Rev.  Q.  H.  Humphrey,  Dear  Br:  1  fear  you  arc  inclined 
to  give  me  more  credit  than  I  am  entitled  to,  as  yon  say  I 
admitted  the  substance  of  your  first  letter.  You  mistake;  I 
did  not  admit  to  much.    I  limply  f  teted  that  I  did  not  claim 


18 


THE  HtJMPHBBT-BBNNSTT  DIBCUSSIOK. 


THE   HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCtTSSIOK. 


Id 


I 


I 


thiU  unbelieyere,  in  the  American  strnggle,  equaled,  numeri 
cally,  the  believera    On  all  the  other  points  I  took  issue 
with  you. 

Ton  are  mistaken  again  in  saying  I  asserted  that,  resist- 
ance to  constituted  goyernment  *•*•  is  contrary  to  the  princi- 
ples of  Scripture.'*  I  said  nothing  of  the  kind.  If  you 
will  refer  to  my  reply  you  will  see  that  I  said  it  was  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  (JhrUtianity^A  very  wide  difference. 
I  readily  grant  that  in  the  Old  Testament  there  are  numer- 
ous instances  where  war  and  bloodshed  were  brought 
into  use  to  OTcrthrow  existing  governments.  The  Qod  of 
the  Old  Testament  seems  to  have  been  more  fond  of  war 
and  slaughter  than  anything  else.  He  styled  himself  *'  the 
Lord  of  Hosts"  and  **  the  Qod  of  Battles/'  and  gloried  in 
subduing  enemies.  But  that  was  not  Christianity,  and  I 
defy  you  to  cite  one  instance  where  the  reputed  founder  of 
Christianity,  or  its  early  promulgators,  ever  incited  a  war 
for  freedom,  or  even  admitted  the  advisability  of  such  a 
struggle.  The  burden  of  Christ's  teachings  touching  this 
point,  as  I  said,  was,  "submit"  and  "obey,"  "never 
rebel,"  **  assert  not  your  own  independence." 

I  am  very  sure  you  cannot  cite  an  instance  where  Christ, 
or  any  of  his  disciples,  ever  encouraged  a  people  to  rise 
against  their  oppressors,  or  to  lift  their  hands  to  strike  off 
the  chains  that  bound  them.  That  would  not  have  been  the 
spirit  of  Christianity.  Its  office,  in  its  incipiency,  was  to 
make  people  contented  with  their  lot,  and  to  enjoin  them  to 
submit  to  the  powers  that  were.  Christ  said  explicitly  **  My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this 
word,  then  would  my  servants  fight."  He  found  his  own 
nation  groaning  under  the  heel  of  foreign  oppression,  but 
he  said  not  a  word  to  incite  resistance  to  that  oppression. 
When  the  hand  of  tyranny  was  laid  upon  himself,  and  his 
liberty  and  life  were  in  peril,  he  moved  not  a  finger  towards 
freedom.  The  tenor  of  all  his  teachings  was  to  yield  sub- 
mission to  the  powm  of  this  world,  for  ths  glories  thai 


await  in  the  next.  No,  Christ  did  not  teach  people  to  rise 
nnd  fight  for  liberty,  nor  even  to  aspire  to  political  free- 
dom. To  fight  for  political  rights  was  contrary  to  the 
injunctions  of  him  who  said,  **  My  servants  do  not  fight." 
To  do  that  was  opposition  to  his  entire  teachings.  It  wm 
Infidelity.  Hence  the  American  people  were  doing  the  work 
of  Infidelity  when  they  took  up  arms  to  resist  a  Christian 
power. 

Tou  seem  disposed  to  claim  persons  as  Christians  who  evi- 
dently were  not  such.  And  before  we  go  further,  it  will  be 
well  to  understand  what  is  required  in  order  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian. It  does  not  make  a  man  a  Christian  to  be  bom  of  Chris- 
tian parents,  to  have  a  Christian  wife,  or  to  sometimes,  or  fre- 
quently, attend  a  Christian  church,  nor  to  pay  for  a  pew  in  a 
Christian  church.  He  is  not  a  Christian  though  he  admits 
that  Jesus  had  a  real  existence,  that  he  was  a  good  man  and 
taught  good  morals.  It  does  not  make  a  man  a  Christian  to 
believe  that  the  Christian  religion,  in  most  respects,  is  an  im- 
provement on  the  systems  that  previously  existed  in  the 
world.  It  does  not  make  a  man  a  Christian  to  be  a  lover  of 
virtue  and  morality.  This  class  of  men  have  been  foimd  in 
all  systems  of  religion.  But  to  be  a  Christian,  a  man  must 
accept  and  believe  the  dogmas  constituting  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, the  principal  among  which  are  that  Jesus  was  divinely 
begotten;  that  he  is  God;  that  he  died  to  reconcile  God  to 
man;  to  atone  for  a  lost  world;  and  that,  without  a  belief  in 
him  and  in  the  efilcacy  of  bis  blood,  there  can  be  no  salva- 
tion. This  I  have  heard  proclaimed  from  Christian  pulpits 
again  and  again,  and  I  hardly  think  you  will  deny  it.  I  will 
call  your  attention  to  an  ecclesiatical  trial  that  is  now  pending 
against  the  Rev.  John  Miller,  Princeton,  N.  J.,  of  your  own 
denomination  (Presbyterian),  for  holding  that  the  Bible  does 
not  teach  that  Jesus  is  God;  that  he  was  simply  a  chosen  man, 
and  for  denying  the  Trinity.  For  this  the  Rev.  Miller  is 
charged  with  being  a  heretic,  or  an  Infidel,  and  there  is  but 
little  doubt  that  he  will  be  expelled  from  the  position  in  the 


m 


TBE  MUMFUUXT-IIINN BTT  KSCVtoHOir. 


TMM  MUKPBRXT-BElf  NBTT  DIMOUSSZON. 


SI 


Christian  pulpit  which  he  has  oceupied.  So  be  careful,  my 
Friend,  that  yon  do  not  claim  as  Christians  those  whom 
your  own  ehurch  does  not  accept.  Let  not  Brother  Miller''s 
perils  escape  your  obserration. 

Before  giving  quotations  from  recognized  authorities,  I 
wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  that  most  of  the  biog- 
raphies and  histories  published  are  written,  directly  or 
indirectly,  in  the  interest  of  Christianity.  A  large  pro- 
portion of  them  are  written  by  Christian  clergymen  aw 
Christian  professors,  or,  at  all  eyents,  they  are  written  for 
a  Christian  market,  and  cTerything  is  shaped  and  colored 
accordingly.  A  shrewd  caterer,  of  course,  always  prepares 
IkisTiands  to  snit  the  tastt  of  his  patrons,  and  to  please  those 
who  pay  their  money.  When  a  great  or  distinguished  man 
has  passed  away,  the  fondness  for  making  it  appear  that  he 
was  a  Christian,  or  that  he  accepted  the  Christian  system,  i» 
most  conspicuous,  and  it  is  often  anmsing  to  notice  the 
Ingenuity  employed  in  that  direction.  It  is  not  to  be 
thought  strange,  then,  if  the  Infidel  views  of  our  great  men 
are  kept  in  the  background,  and  that  eveiy  circumstance 
which  eren  squints  toward  their  feeling  friendly  to  the 
{Christian  religion  is  most  favorably  presented.  Sveiything 
and  everybody  is  expected  to  bow  in  submission  to  the  great 
Diana  of  the  age--the  Christian  religion. 

I  cannot  agree  with  you,  that  you  have  proved  Franklin 
to  have  been  a  Christian.  His  being  raised  under  religioua 
influences  does  not  establish  it.  Paine  was  so  reared,  and  so 
were  the  larger  share  of  Infidels.  You  admit  that,  during  a 
portion  of  his  life,  he  was  an  Atheist.  I  did  not  claim  so 
much,  but  that  he  was  a  moderate  Deist,  or  Moralist.  You 
speak  of  his  having  drawn  up  a  creed  and  liturgy  of  his 
own.  He  did  so,  but  that  hardly  proves  him  a  Christian, 
but  rather  the  reverse.  Had  he  been  a  Christian,  he  would 
liave  needed  no  creed  of  hit  own.  The  creed  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  would  have  been  all  he  needed.  Besides,  hie 
d^  was  i^ura  (teism.    Qe  ipol^  of  ^d  with  great  re?ei^ 


enoe,  but  s^d  nothing  about  his  divine  Son,  nor  of  the  cfll- 
cacy  of  his  blood,  nor  of  his  death. 

Parton  says  (vol.  i,  p.  175):  "As  Franklin  grew  older  he 
abandoned  the  fantastical  part  of  his  creed  and  settled  down 
into  the  belief  of  these  six  articles:  *  There  is  one  God,  the 
Creator  of  all  things.  God  governs  the  world  by  his  provi- 
denc\  God  ought  to  be  worshiped.  Doing  good  to  man  it 
the  service  most  acceptable  to  God.  Man  is  ImmortaL  In 
the  future  world  the  disembodied  souls  of  men  will  be  dealt 
with  justly.'  "  This  U  Deism— nothing  more,  and  nothing 
less— and  agrees  as  nearly  with  the  religion  of  Thomas 
Paine  as  the  creeds  of  two  men  can  agree.  It  contains 
nothing  of  the  dogmas  of  Christianity,  nothing  of  the  author 
of  it  On  page  71,  vol.  i,  in  speaking  of  the  change  which 
had  occurred  in  Franklin's  views,  Parton  says:  **  He  escaped 
the  theology  of  terror  and  became  forever  incapable  of  wor- 
shiping a  jealous,  revengeful,  and  vindictive  God."  If 
Parton  was  correct,  Franklin  was  forever  incapacitated  for 
becoming  a  Christian. 

On  page  319,  vol.  i,  Parton  settles  the  question  of  Franl»- 
lin's  belief  most  conclusively.  He  says:  "In  conversation 
with  familiar  friends  he  (Franklin)  called  himself  a  Deist  or 
Theist,  and  he  resented  a  sentence  in  Mr.  Whitefield's  Jour, 
nal  which  seemed  to  imply  that  between  a  Deist  and  an 
Atheist  there  was  little  or  no  difference.  Whitefield  wrote: 
•  M.  B.  is  a  Deist ;  I  had  almost  said  an  Atheist '  *  That  is,» 
said  Franklin,  *  eJuUk,  I  had  almost  said  charcoal.' "  It 
will  be  seen  by  this  that,  while  Franklin  did  not  like  to  be 
called  an  Atheist,  he  notably  called  himself  a  Deist,  and 
did  not  object  to  others  doing  so  ;  and  there  is  not  the  first 
particle  of  proof  that  he  ever  changed  from  this  position. 

On  page  546,  vol.  i,  Parton,  in  speaking  of  the  intimacy 
oetween  Priestley  and  Franklin,  quotes  from  Priestley's 
Autobiography  these  words:  "It  is  much  to  be  lamented 
that  a  man  of  Franklin's  general  good  character  and  great  in- 
fluence should  have  been  an  unbeliever  in  Christianity,  and 


I 


1 


■a 


in 


THE  HUMPHRXT-BENKBrr  DUOUflSlON. 

ileo  have  done  so  much  as  be  did  to  make  others  unbeliev. 
ere.*'    Priestley  furnished  some  works  upon  the  evidences  of 
Christianity  for  Franklin  to  read,  but  the  American  war 
breaking  out  soon  after,  he  presumed  Franklin  never  read 
them.    I  regard  these  as  positive   proofs   of    Franklin's 
Deism.    Priestley  knew  him  well  and  had  frequent  conver- 
iatlons  with  him  upon  the  subject,  and.  though  he  was  him- 
self considered  very  radical,  and  was  often  denounced  as  an 
Infidel,  he  still  regretted  that  Franklin  was  still  more  unbe- 
lieving.   If  Priestley,  who  knew  him  so  intimately,  knew 
him  to  be  a  Deist,  is  it  not  a  work  of  supererogation  in  us, 
who  knew  him  much  less  intimately,  to  undertake  to  call 
him  a  Christian?    In  his  comments  Parton  says:  •*  Perhaps 
If  the  two  men  were  now  alive,  we  might  express  the  theo- 
logical  difference  between  them  by  saying  Priestley  was  a 
Unitarian  of  the  Channing  school,  and  Franklin  of  that  of 
Theodore  Parker  "—a  total  unbeliever  la  the  dogmas  of 
Christianity.    Everybody  knows  that  Parker  was  a  thou- 
sand times  denounced  as  an  Infidel. 

To  show  how  great  a  reverence  Franklin  entertained  for 
the  sacredness  of  the  Bible,  I  wUl  allude  to  a  fact  which 
Parton  mentions  (vol.  i,  p.  830).  It  was  a  custom  with 
Franklin  to  amuse  himself  and  his  friends  by  taking  up  the 
Bible  and  pretending  to  read  from  it,  instead  of  which  he 
extemporized  as  he  went  along.  Had  he  believed  the 
Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  he  would  hardly  have  subject- 
ed it  to  caricature  and  ridicule  in  that  manner. 

In  vol.  ii,  p.  412,  is  mentioned  the  list  of  Franklin's 
friends  in  Paris,  with  whom  he  was  on  familiar  terms,  as 
follows.  Turgot,  Raynal,  Morcellet,  Rochefoucault,  Buf- 
foD,  D'Alembert,  Condorcet,  Oabanis,  LeRoy,  Mabley,  Mi- 
rabeau,  D'Holbach,  Marmontel.  Necker,  Malesherbes,  Wat- 
elet,  Madame  de  Genlis,  Madame  Denis,  Madame  Helve- 
tius,  Madame  Brillon,  Madame  de  St«el,  La  Viellard,  etc. 
These  were  mostly  Infidels  and  were,  to  say  the  least, 
rather  questionable  company  for  a  Christian.   Jonathan  Ed- 


THB  HTJMPHRET  -  BENNETT  DI9CUS8I0K. 


38 


wards  would  hardly  have  selected  them  for  companione. 
Voltaire  and  Franklin  entertained  a  high  regard  for  each 
other.  They  met  at  a  theatre  on  a  certain  occasion  in  Paris. 
when  they  embraced  each  other  like  brothers.  Voltaire 
would  hardly  have  been  so  affectionate  towards  a  Christian, 
nor  a  Christians  toward  Voltaire. 

You  speak  of  Franklin  advising  a  Freethinker  not  to  pub- 
lish  a  certain  skeptical  work  which  he  had  written.    This 
has  often  been  said  to  refer  to  Paine  and  his  "Age  of  Rea- 
son."   To  show  how  far  this  is  from  being  the  truth,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  state  that  Franklin  died  not  less  than  three 
years  before  a  word  of  the  "Age  of  Reason  "  was  written. 
Parton  says:  **  Paine  was  a  resident  of  Philadelphia,  a  fre- 
quenter of  Franklin's  house,  and  was  as  well  aware  as  we 
are  of  Dr.  Frnklin's  religious  opinions.    Nor  is  there  much 
in  the  "Age  of  Reason"  to  which  Franklin  would  have 
refused  his  assent "  (vol.  ii.  p.  553).    He  classes  Franklin 
with  such  Ghritiiant  (?)  as  Goethe,  Schiller,  Voltaire,  Hume, 
and  Jefferson,  and  says  they  all  would  have  belonged  to  the 
same  church  (vol.  ii,  p.  646).     Does  that   look  much  as 
though  Parton  considered  Franklin  a  Christian?    If  Frank- 
Un  could  have  accepted  the  "Age  of  Reason,"  it  is  a  marvel 
how  you  can  claim  him  as  a  Christian! 

Allow  me  to  make  a  few  quotations  from  Franklin's  pri- 
vate  letters.    To  B.  Vaughan  (1778)  he  said:  ** Remember 
me  affectionately  to  good  Dr.  Price  and  to  the  honest  here- 
tic,  Dr.  Priestley.    I  do  not  call  him  honest  by  way  of  dis- 
tinction, for  I  think  all  the  heretics  I  have  known  have  been 
virtuous  men.    They  have  the  virtue  of  fortitude,  or  they 
would  never  venture  to  own  their  heresy."    That  does  not 
sound  much  Uke  a  Christian.     How  he  felt  toward   the 
Bible  may  be  inferred  from  an  extract  from  a  letter  which 
he  wrote  to  a  friend,  in  1784.    He  observes:  "There  are 
several  things  in  the  Old  Testament  impossible  to  be  given 
bjdivtne  inspiration;  auch  as  the  approbation  ascribed  to 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  of  that  abominably  wicked  and  de- 


u 


TMM  WUMFBXKT-Waumm  DIBCUBSIOir. 


testable   action  of  Jael.  the  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite^ 
(Opinions  of  Celebrated  Men,  p.  9).    This  is  sufflcient  to 
show  that  certaia  parts  of  the  Bible,  at  least,  he  did  not 
believe  were  given  by  divine  inspiration,  and  there  is  noth- 
ing  to  prove  that  he  hai  any  special  veneration  for  the  book 
as  a  whole.   There  is  also  nothing  to  show  ihat  he  believed 
Jesus  to  be  a  god  or  to  have  been  diTfucl^  h^jrutten  by  God. 
When  he  had  reached  the  great  age  of  eighty-five  years] 
and  President  Ezra  Stiles,  of  Yale,  addressed  him  *,  letter] 
asking  positively  as  to  his  views  regarding  Jesus  Christ,  ho 
showed  in  his  reply  that  they  had  undergone  no  material 
change.    He  wrote:  •*  As  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  my  opinion 
of  whom  you  particularly  desire,  I  think  the  system  of 
morals  and  his  religion,  as  he  left  them  to  us,  the  best  the 
world  ever  saw.  oris  like  to  see;  but  I  appreiend  it  has 
received  various  corrupting  changes,  and  1  have,  with  the 
present  dissenters  in  England,  some  doubts  as  to  his  divin- 
ity,  though  it  is  a  question  I  do  not  dogmatize  upon,  having 
never  studied  it,  and  think  it  needless  to  busy  myself  with 
it  now,  when  I  expect  soon  an  opportunity  of  knowing  the 
truth  with  less  trouble."    This  was  probably  his  last  utter- 
ance  upon  the  subject;  and  while  he  did  not  wish  to  express 
himself  harshly  to  his  respected  Christian  friend,  De  con- 
f  essed  that  though  he  r^arded  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  su- 
perior  to  the  human  teachers  who  had  preceded  him,  and  his 
system  of  religion  an  improvement  upon  the  old  pagan  sys- 
tems, he  did  not  accept  his  divinity;  that  he  had  not  Uken 
Interest  enough  in  it  to  study  the  question,  and  that  is  view 
of  an  early  visitation  of  death,  he  did  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  do  so.    He  did  not  fear  to  die  in  his  belief  that  Jesus  was 
simply  a  good  man— a  position  that  nearly  all  Deists  occupy. 
I  repeat,  then,  Franklin  was  emphatically  a  Deist,  and  he 
died  without  experiencing  any  change  of  views  upon  the 
subject    The  painting  you  spoke  of  proves  little.    It  might 
liave  been  a  fine  work  of  art,  or  the  gift  of  a  dear  friend,  but 
bectnie  it  wis  in  Us  room,  or  because  his  eyes  rested  nptm 


•m  HinCPHBET-BBHKSTT  DISOUBSION. 


n 


it,  does  not  show  that  he  at  anytime  accepted  Jesus  as  God, 
or  that  his  life-long  deistical  views  had  changed.  He  did  noi 
deem  it  necessary  to  wash  in  Jesus*  blood,  nor  to  have  any 
special  part  in  him.  before  or  after  he  closed  his  eyes  ia 

death. 

As  to  Washington,  you  anticipated  somewhat  the  evidence 
I  intended  to  present,  and  you  seem  not  satisfied  with  its 
directness.    It  certainly  is  not  very  "  roundabout,"  nor  very 
apocryphal  in  character.    Robert  Dale  Owen,  a  gentleman 
of  unblemished  character  and  great  intelligence,  is  still  liv- 
ing.   He  had  seen  an  article  in  the  Albany  Daily  Advertiser 
of  October  29, 1831,  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson  of 
the  Episcopal  church  in  that  city,  in  which  he  had  given  as 
authority  Dr.  Abercrombie.  rector  of  the  Episcopal  church 
in  Philadelphia  which  Washington  attended  while  Presi- 
dent, that  on  occasions  of  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper,  Washington  invariably  absented 
himself ;  and  when  in  a  discourse  the  Doctor  reprovingly 
alluded  to  it  Washington  took  some  offense  at  it  and  was 
never  known  to  stay  through  the  ceremony  and  participate 
in  the  rite.    Mr.  Owen  called  upon  Dr.  Wilson.    He  read  to 
him  the  Advertiser  article,  and  said  he  had  called  to  converse 
with  him  upon  the  subject  of  what  his  friend.  Dr.  Aber- 
crombie, had  said  in  reference  to  Washington.    Dr.  Wil- 
son's response  was  as  follows,  "I  endorse  every  word  of 
that,"  and   further  added,  "As  I  conceive  that  truth  ia 
truth,  whether  it  make  for  us  or  against  us,  I  will  not  con- 
ceal from  you  any  information  I  have  on  this  subject,  even 
such  as  I  have  not  given  to  the  public.*'    He  then  narrated 
the  conversations  he  had  with  Dr.  Abercrombie  upon  the 
subject  of  Washington's  religious  views,  and  gave  that  emi- 
nent clergyman's  word's,  thus.  **Sm.  Washington  was  a 
Dkibt  I "    •*  Now,"  continued  Dr.  Wilson,  **  I  have  perused 
every  line  that  Washington  ever  gave  to  the  public,  and  I 
do  not  find  one  expression  in  which  he  pledges  himself  as  a 
professor  of  Christianity.    I  think  any  man  who  will  can- 


M 


THE  HUHPHBST  •  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


THB  HUMPUREY  -  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


S7 


I 


didiy  do  as  I  have  done  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he 
was  a  Deist  and  nothing  more^  (Bachelor  and  Owen  Debate, 
p.  889). 

I  repeat,  this  does  not  strike  me  as  bein^^  *' round- 
about or  unreliable."  Between  Dr.  Abercrombie  and  Mr. 
Owen  was  only  Dr.  Wilson,  and  all  three  of  the  gentlemen 
were  men  of  character  and  reliability,  and  Dr.  Abercrombie 
had  excellent  opportunities  for  knowing  Washiogton's  views. 
Tour  allusion  to  what  Paine  said  about  '*  hearsay  upon 
hearsay ''  in  his  remarks  about  r§9aaiion  appear  to  be  hardly 
to  the  point.  And  permit  me  to  add,  if  the  system  of  relig- 
ion which  you  so  greatly  revere  were  based  upon  testimony 
half  as  direct  and  reliable  as  this  of  Dr.  Abercrombie,  Dr. 
Wilson  and  Robert  Dale  Owen,  ite  credibility  would  be 
greatly  improved.  In  this  case  there  is  nothing  of  the  nature 
of  a  dream  related  by  a  second  party,  from  fifty  to  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  after  it  was  said  to  have  been  dreamed. 

Touching  Washington's  religious  views,  Thomas  Jefferson 
wrote  as  follows  in  his  journal  of  1800  (Jefferson's  Works, 
vol.  iv,  p.  672):  *'Dr.  Rush  told  me,  he  had  it  from  Asa 
Green,  that  when  the  clergy  addressed  Geo.  Washington  on 
his  departure  from  the  government,  it  was  observed  in  their 
consultation  that  he  had  never,  on  any  occasion,  said  a 
word  to  the  public  which  showed  a  belief  in  the  Christian 
religion,  and  they  thought  they  should  so  pen  their  addresses 
as  to  force  him  at  length  to  disclose  publicly  whether  he  was 
a  Christian  or  not.  However,  he  observed,  the  old  fox  was 
too  cnnning  for  them.  He  answered  every  article  of  their 
address,  particularly,  except  that,  which  he  passed  over 
without  notice.  Rush  observes,  he  (Washington)  never  did 
say  a  word  on  the  subject  in  any  of  his  public  papers,  ex- 
cept in  his  valedictory  letters  to  the  governors  of  the  States, 
when  he  resigned  his  commission  in  the  army,  wherein  he 
speaks  of  the  benign  influence  of  the  Christian  religion.  I 
know  that  Gouvemenr  Morris,  who  claimed  to  be  In  his 
•(crets,  and  believed  himself  to  be  so,  has  often  told  me  thai 


Oeneral  Washington  believed  no  more  in  that  system  Chns- 
Snity)thanhedid.''    ^o  mnc^  f^or.  JeEerson  J^^^^ 
ttot  speak  very  strong  for  Washington's   belief  in  Chris- 

tianity,  or  Morris*  either. 

Washington's  reticence  on  doctrinal  points  was  marked. 
He  was  discreet  and  non-commital;  he  did  not  obtrude  his 
Deistic  views  upon  others,  but  that  he  firmly  maintained 
them  cannot  be  doubted.  I  agree  with  you  that  he  was  a 
moral  man,but  you  hardly  have  the  guarantee  for  saying 
that  he  was  "  highly  religious."  He  was  no  more  so  than  is 
compatible  with  a  belief  in  Deism.  I  think  you  cannot  quote 
a  paragraph,  that  he  wrote  or  a  word  that  he  uttered,  which 
shows  that  he  accepted  the  dogmas  of  Christianity,  that  he 
believed  that  Jesus  is  God  and  that  his  blood  is  essential  to  the 
salvation  of  the  world.  While  he  was  President  he  signed 
a  treaty  made  between  our  government  and  Tripoli,  where- 
m  it  was  solemnly  declared  that  '*the  government  of  the 
United  States  is  not  in  any  sente  founded  on  the  Christian 

religion."  ^     .    j  * 

As  to  Benjamin  Rush,  perhaps  I  was  hardly  authorized  U> 
class  him  among  the  Deists,  though  he  was  a  liberal  and 
progressive  man.  Possibly  the  friendship  he  showed  to 
Paine  and  the  manner  in  which  Jefferson  uses  his  name  and 
remarks  justified  my  doing  so.  There  may  be  no  accessible 
proof  that  Hamilton  was  a  Deist,  though  probably  as  much 
as  there  is  that  he  was  a  Christian,  or  that  he  believed  m 
the  Christian  dogmas.  I.  however,  waive  special  claim  to 
Hamilton.  As  to  Aaron  Burr,  I  did  not  say  nor  intimate  that 
he  was  a  "'scoffer,"  nor  did  I  suppose  he  was  so  more  than 
Franklin,  Washington  or  Jefferson.  If,  however,  you  had 
been  a  little  fuller  in  your  quotation  from  Parton.  you  would 
have  shown  that  Burr  was  all  I  claimed  him  to  be-one  who 
did  not  accept  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  At  the  time  of 
Burr's  death,  Dr.  Van  Pelt,  Reformed  Dutch  clergyman,  was 
called  in.  and  he  questioned  Burr  closely  upon  his  Delief  in 
the  merits  of  Jesus,  who  suffered  and  died  on  the  cross  for 


I 
/ 


• 


II 

J' 


nn   HITMPHBET-BEKKBTT  DISCUSSION. 


the  salration  of  the  world.  Burr's  laconic  and  coDclnsive 
reply  was,  **  On  that  subject  I  am  coy  **  (Life  and  Times  of 
Barr,  p.  681).  If  he  entertained  any  belief  In  Jesus  being 
the  son  of  God,  and  that  he  must  be  saved  by  faith  in  him, 
that  was  the  time  for  him  to  confess  it.  He  should  then 
have  ceased  to  be  eo^  or  silent  But  he  did  not ;  and 
you  have  no  just  grounds  upon  which  to  claim  him  as  a 
Christian.  The  same  with  GouTeraeur  Morris.  Of  him 
and  Madison  I  will  probably  have  more  to  say  as  we  pro- 
gress. D.  M.  B. 


THB  HUMPflBET-BBNNETT  DI8CUSSI0H. 


29 


MB.     HUMPHRBT. 

Kbw  Yobx,  April  28, 1877. 
Mb.  B.  M.  "Bmswam—Jhar  Sir:  Examine  my  last  letter 
closer  and  you  will  find  I  did  not  say  that  Franklin  wai 
erer  an  Atheist.  Tou  say  his  creed  contains  no  recognition 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  That  is  true;  hut  the  doctrine  cf 
the  divinity  of  Chriat  is  not  the  dividing  line  between  Infidelity 
and  Christianity^  but  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Bible,  See  Webster's  and  Worcester's  definitions  of  the 
words  "Infidelity"  and  "Christianity."  When  Part  on  says 
Franklin  "escaped  the  theology  of  terror,  and  became 
forever  incapable  of  worshiping  a  jealous,  revengeful 
and  vindictive  God/'  he  meant  no  more  than  that 
he  was  emancipated  from  the  hyper-Calvinism  of  "the 
Lord  Brethren  of  Boston  '*  (Life  of  Franklin,  vol  i,  p.  71). 
He  had  still  the  wide  domain  of  Arminianisih  to  traverse 
before  reaching  the  borders  of  Deism.  If  his  friendship 
with  French  Atheists  proves  that  he  was  an  Infidel,  then, 
on  the  same  principle,  his  friendship  with  such  men  as  Cot- 
ton Mather,  Samuel  Adams,  Ezra  Stiles,  Benj.  Rush,  Ed- 
mund Burke,  Adam  Smith,  John  Jay,  Bishop  Shipley, 
George  Whitfield,  etc.,  etc.,  proves  that  he  was  a  flrst-rato 
Cbriatian.    It  is  true  Franklin  and  Yoltaire  were  friends; 


but  that  embracing  in  the  theatre  proves  nothing,  as  it  was 
not  spontaneous,  but  an  act  forced  by  the  popular  clamor 
for  a  salutation  "French  fashion"  (Parton's  Life  of  Franklin, 
vol.  ii,  p.  316).    As  you  say,  Parton   classifies    Franklin, 
Jefferson,  and  Adams  with  Paine.     But  how  does  he  do  it? 
Is  it  by  asserting  that  the  former  three  were  Freethinkers  T 
No;  unaccountable  as  that  may  be,  he  does  it  by  saying 
that  the  "Age  of  Reason  contains  nothing  against  religion" 
(Life  of  Franklin,  vol.  ii,  p.  562)  1'  It  is  said  again  that 
Franklin  "  called  himself  a  Deist  or  Theist."    A  man  that 
can  use  words  in  that  helter-skelter  kind  of  a  way  could 
prove  anything  from  any  document.    "Deist  or  Theist"! 
Mr.  Parton  ought  to  know  that  these  words,  as  they  are 
currently  used  and  popularly  understood,  are  as  different 
as  "chalk"  and  "charcoal."    The  former  means  an  Infidel, 
and  the  latter  signifies  a  believer  in  a  personal  God  and  in  a 
divine  revelation.    That  Franklin  was  a  Theist  is  all  I  con. 
tend  for.    I  will  let  you  and  Parton  reconcile  the  foregoing 
with  what  the  latter  says  of  Franklin  in  his  remarks  on  the 
motion  for  prayers  in  the  Convention  of  1787:  "  It  was  the 
more  remarkable  to  see  the  aged  Franklin,  who  was  a  Deist 
at  fifteen  "—mark  it,  "  wmm  a  Deist  at  fifteen  "—"and  had 
just  returned  from  France/'— from  the  midst  of  those  Athe- 
istic friends—"  coming  back  to  the  sentiments  of  his  ances- 
tors" (Parton's  Life  of   Franklin,  vol.  ii,  p.  675).    You 
refer  to  Priestley's  lamentation  that  Franklin  was  "  an  un- 
believer in  Christianity."    I  will  say,  in  the  words  of  Par- 
ton,  "  I  do  not  understand  what  Priestley  meant."    What 
did  he  disbelieve?    He  was  only  undecided  as  to  the  divinity 
of  Christ.    He  believed  in  the  most  incredible  doctrines  of 
Christianity,   such    as  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and 
future  rewards  and  punishments,  and  in  its  leading  duties, 
sudh  as  thanksgiving  and  prayer.    In  the  preface  to  his 
abridged  book  of   Common  Prayer,  he  styled  himself  a 
"Protestant  of  the  Church  of  England,"  and  a  "sincere 
lover  of  social  worship."    In  iplte  of  Parton*»  leaning  to 


THB  HUMPH RKT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


L 

m 
III 


"Liberalism/'  he  liad  to  describe. his  death  by  saying 
'*  To  use  the  ancient  language,  he  htid  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus, 
and  rested  in  hope  of  a  blessed  immortality"  (70I.  ii,  p.  619), 

Tou  repeat  the  **  hearsay  upon  hearsay  "  in  rebuttal  of  my 
proofs  that  Washington  was  not  a  Deist.  I  cannot  receiYe 
R  D.  Owen's  testimony,  but  with  suspicion.  A  man  that 
could  be  imposed  upon  by  a  silly  girl  like  Katie  King,  is 
rather  incompetent  to  sift  and  furnish  evidence.  The 
treaty  with  Tripoli,  ratified  in  17»6,  was  "in  no  sense"  of 
a  personal  character.  The  statement  that  '*  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  is  In  no  sense  founded  on  the  Christian 
religion,"  was  only  an  assurance  that  the  American  Repub- 
lic was  not  so  allied  to  Christianity  that  the  peace  with 
Tripoli,  or  with  any  other  power,  would  be  interrupted  on 
account  of  religion.  It  gives  no  hint  that  Washington  perMm- 
aUy  ignored  Christianity.  His  writings  contain  abundant 
proof  that  he  did  not.  The  only  thing  "observed  "  was  his 
■ilence  on  sectarian  doctrines.  He  was  bold  and  frequent 
in  his  commendation  and  recommendation  of  the  general 
principles  of  Christianity. 

Even  Vale  admits  that  the  "publication  of  Paine's  Do- 
istical  opinions  might  have  been  one  of  the  causes  of  Gen. 
Washington's  indifference  to  Paine  durhig  his  imprisonment 
in  France  "  (Life  of  Paine,  p.  129).  Most  assuredly,  then, 
Washington  was  no  sympathizer  with  Deism. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  John  Adams,  too,  was  an  Infidel. 
Let  us  see  about  that.  He  was  reared  in  an  orthodox  fam- 
ily. He  was  educated  at  Harvard,  an  institution  that  was 
then  pervaded  by  a  religious  spirit  At  twenty  he  thought 
of  entering  the  ministry.  But  his  taste  led  him  to  study 
law.  He  read  many  skeptical  works,  which  modified  the 
rigidity  of  his  theological  views.  He  disliked  Calvinism, 
80  did  Adam  Clarke  and  John  Wesley.  He  despised 
wrangling  sectarianism.  So  did  St.  Paul.  As  evidence 
that  this  representation  is  correct,  see  Bancroft,  vol  iii,  p 
142;  voL  ▼,  p.  207, 


TBS  nUMPHRBT  -  BBNKSTT  DIBCUBSIO^. 


3S 


A  patient  and  impartial  examination  of  John  Adams*  Lifr 
and  Works,  Boston,  1856,  cannot  but  show  you  that  he  was 
not  a  Deist.  In  his  diary,  Jan.  22,  1756,  he  wrote:  "Sup- 
pose a  nation  in  some  distant  region  should  take  the  Bible 
for  their  only  law-book,  and  every  member  should  regulate 
his  conduct  by  the  precepts  there  exhibited.  Every  mem- 
ber would  be  obliged,  in  conscience,  to  temperance  and 
frugality  and  industry;  to  justice  and  kindness  and  charity 
towards  his  fellow  men;  and  to  piety,  love,  and  reverence 
towards  Almighty  God.  In  this  commonwealth  no  man 
would  impair  his  health  by  gluttony,  drunkenness,  or  lust; 
no  man  would  sacrifice  his  most  precious  time  at  cards,  or 
any  other  trifling  and  mean  amusement;  no  man  woiid 
steal  or  lie,  or  in  any  way  defraud  his  neighbor,  but  would 
live  in  peace  and  good  will  with  all  men;  no  man  would 
blaspheme  his  Maker  or  profane  his  worship  (Works,  vol. 
ii,  pp.  6,  7).  He  says  of  Bolingbroke,  whom  he  admired 
as  ApoUiieal  writer:  "His  religion  is  a  pompous  folly,  and 
his  abuse  of  the  Christian  religion  is  as  superficial  as  it  it 
impious;"  *'a  haughty,  arrogant,  sux>ercilious  dogmatist'* 
(voL  i,  p.  44;  vol.  x,  p.  82).  At  the  age  of  sixty  he  saidt 
'*  The  Christian  religion  is,  above  all  the  religions  that  ever 
prevailed  or  existed  in  ancient  or  modern  times,  the  religion 
of  wisdom,  virtue,  equity,  and  humanity  "  (vol.  iii,  p.  421). 
In  a  letter  to  Benj.  Rush,  in  1810,  he  said:  "  The  Christian 
r(  ligion,  as  I  understand  it,  is  the  brightness  of  the  glory 
and  the  express  portrait  of  the  character  of  the  eternal, 
self-existent,  independent,  benevolent,  all-powerful,  and 
ull-merciful  creator,  preserver,  and  father  of  the  Universe, 
the  first  good,  first  perfect,  and  first  fair.  It  will  last  as 
long  as  the  world.  Neither  savage  nor  civilized  man,  with' 
eut  a  revelation^  could  ever  have  discovered  or  invented  it " 
(vol  ix,  p.  627).  In  a  letter  to  Jefferson,  dated  Dec.  25, 
1813,  he  wrote:  "  I  have  examined  all,  as  well  as  my  narrow 
sphere,  my  straitened  means,  and  my  busy  life  would  allow 
me;  and  the  result  is  that  the  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the 


Tim  BUHPHRST-BEKKSTT  BlfiCUSSIOR. 


lii' 


[i 


ii 


It 


world,  it  contains  more  of  my  litlle  philosophy  than  all 
tho  libraries  I  have  seen ;  and  such  parts  of  it  as  I  cannot 
reconcile  to  my  little  philosophy,  I  postpone  for  future  in- 
▼estigaticn"  (vol.  x,  p.  86).  Bancroft  says  he  "invoked 
Ihe  blessins;  of  heaven  to  make  the  new-born  republic  more 
glorious  than  any  which  had  gone  before  "  (vol.  v,  p.  812). 
The  most  that  can  be  said  of  him  is  that  he  was  a  Uaitarian 
of  the  most  conservative  kind  (Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  621;  vol, 
iii,  p.  423;  vol  x,  pp.  66,  84).  But  he  did  not  "deny 
Christianity  and  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures,*'  therefore  he 
was  not  an  InOdeL 

The  thoroughly  religious  character  of  his  &on,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  shows  that  he  did  not  impart  Deistical  in- 
struction. His  writings  abound  with  severe  criticisms  on 
Paiiie*8  views.    This  we  shall  show  more  fully  hereafter. 

But  you  have  put  in  a  tpedal  claim  to  Thomas  Jefferson. 
The  inquiry  will  naturally  arise,  How  did  Jefferson  come  to 
have  the  name  of  being  an  Infidel  t  Tlie  answer  substan- 
tittlly  is,  That  this  story  was  circulated  by  political  oppo* 
uents  in  the  campaign  of  1800,  and  it  has  been  kept  alivo 
ever  since,  mostly  by  those  who  desired  it  to  be  true.  This 
stoiy  is  about  as  creditable  and  about  as  credible  as  its  co> 
temporaneous  calumny  that  he  had  a  bistard  by  one  of  h^s 
slaves  (Barton's  Life  of  Jefferson,  p.  509). 

I  will  argue  that  Jefferson  was  not  a  Deist,  in  the  full 
sense  of  that  term,  in  four  ways;  1.  From  his  early  training. 
His  parents  were,  theoretically  and  practically,  believers  in 
the  Christian  religion.  Their  illustrious  son  was  thoroughly 
indoctrinated  in  that  religion.  Of  course,  this  does  not 
prow  that  he  continued  to  cherish  those  principles ;  but 
In  the  absence  of  positive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the 
presumption  would  be  that  he  did. 

2.  An  argument  of  some  weight  may  be  based  on  the 
man  whom  he  admired  most,  and  in  whose  learning  and 
judgment  he  had  the  greatest  confidence.  1  refer  to  Dr. 
Priestley.    I  have  ejumined   PriesUcy's  works  carefully. 


M 


^HB  HtJSIPHRBT  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


n 


imd  especially  those  to  wbich  Jefferson  refers  with  bis 
endorsement.  In  those  works  there  is  not  a  word  of  denial 
that  the  Scriptures  are  the  inspired  word  of  God.  The 
author  argues  invariably //'om  the  Bible,  but  never  against 
ft  He  contended  for  what  he  conceived  to  be  purely 
Scriptural  doctrines.  On  reading  the  life  of  Priestley  I 
find,  moreover,  that  he  wrote  a  book  in  defence  of  the  Bible 
against  the  attacks  of  Volney  and  Paine.  If  this  was  the 
character  of  Priestley,  the  master,  may  we  not  ffUrly  infer 
that  that  of  Jefferson,  the  disciple,  was  sinailar  to  it  ? 

8.  We  may  certainly  reason  from  Jefferson's  own  writ- 
ings. He  admits  that  he  was  sometimes  more  angry  witk 
sectaries  than  is  authorised  by  the  blessed  charities  whick 
Jesus  preached  (Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  128).  This  occasional 
'••  anger  "  may  account  for  his  occasionally  rash  expressions. 
The  general  tenor  of  his  correspondence  is  on  the  side  of  the 
Christian  religion.  In  several  of  his  letters  he  complained 
that  *' libels"  had  been  published  against  him  (vol.  iv, 
p.  477— Randall's  Life  of  Jefferson,  vol.  iii.,  p.  45). 
He  wrote  to  Dr.  Rush  in  the  year  1803  that  his  real 
sentiments  were  vqry  different  from  that  anti-Christian 
system  attributed  to  him  by  those  who  knew  nothing  of 
liis  opinions  (Works,  vol.  iv,  p.  479).  In  his  bill  for  estab- 
lishing religious  freedom,  he  referred  to  "  the  holy  Author 
of  our  Religion."  In  referring  to  a  collection  of  New  Tes. 
tament  passages  which  he  called  "  Philosophy  of  Jesus," 
be  said:  **  A  more  beautiful  or  precious  morsel  of  ethics  I 
have  never  seen;  it  is  a  document  in  proof  that  I  am  a  real 
Vhristian  "  (Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  518).  He  believed  in  future 
rewards  and  punishments  (Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  252).  He 
spoke  of  the  Bible  sls  &  revelation  (Works,  vol.  iv.,  p.  423; 
vol.  vii.,  p.  281).  In  a  letter  to  Rush  in  1803  he  said:  "Tt> 
the  corruptions  of  Christianity  I  am  indeed  opposed;  but 
not  to  the  genuine  precepts  of  Jesus  himself.  lama  Vfirii- 
dan  in  the  only  sense  in  which  he  wished  any  one  to  be; 
«inoere1y  aUached  to  bis  doctrines,  in  preference  to  all 


m 


THE  nUJIPUBKY-BBNNETT  DISCUBSIOlf. 


THB  nUMPHRET-BENKBTT  DISCUSSION. 


S5 


'^ ' 


II 


others;  ascribing  to  Mm  every  human  excellence,  and 
believing  he  never  claimed  any  other"  (Works,  vol.  iv,  p, 
479).  Shortly  before  his  dissolution  he  said;  '*  I  resign  my- 
self to  my  God,  and  my  child  to  my  conntry  "  (Encyclope- 
dia Britannica). 

In  reply  to  all  this  you  will  probably  remind  ns  that 
Jefferson  disliked  the  Presbyterians;  that  he  had  to  over- 
ride some  of  the  clergy  to  establish  religious  toleration;  that 
he  said  some  pretty  hard  things  of  those  who  seemed  ta 
have  more  zeal  than  knowledge;  that  he  advised  Peter  Carr 
to  •*  fix  Reason  firmly  in  her  seat,  and  call  to  her  tribunal 
every  fact,  every  opinion";  that  he  made  no  Thanksgiving 
proclamations;  and  that  he  entertained  Paine,  and  spoke 
well  of  his  writings— all  of  which  is  no  proof  that  Thomas 
Jefferson  was  an  Infidel.  The  Presbyterians  were  disliked 
in  that  age  by  almost  every  other  denomination.  Religious 
toleration  was  advocated  and  established  by  the  Revolution- 
ary statesmen,  not  because  they  were  opposed  to  religion, 
but  because  they  wanted  to  give  to  every  form  of  religion 
equal  protection  and  equal  privileges.  The  advice  to  Peter 
Carr  was  only  an  application  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
the  **right  of  private  judgment."  No  one  denounced  Phar- 
isees as  did  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  Jefferson's  refusal 
to  proclaim  Thanksgiving  days  was  based,  not  on  any  an- 
tagonism to  religion,  but  on  his  peculiar  construction  of  the 
Constitution.  They  were  not  all  Deists  that  entertained 
Thomas  Paine  occasionally.  James  Monroe  kept  him  in 
his  house  in  Paris  for  eighteen  months;  but  it  is  well 
JEBOwn  that  President  Monroe  lived  and  died  a  Christian, 
And  almost  everybody,  regardless  of  religious  belief,  spoke 
well  of  Paine's  polUicai  writings.  Jefferson  never  endorsed 
any  other. 

4.  There  is  another  consideration  worth  mentioning.  II 
does  not  sppear  that  Jefferson  and  Thomas  Paine  ever  ex- 
changed ideas  on  religion.  Randall  says  this  topic  did  not 
enter  into  the  conversation  when  the  latter  visited  Monti 


cello  in  1802  (Life  of  Jefferrson,  vol.  ii,  p.  644).  Some  nine 
or  ten  of  Jefferson's  letters  to  Paine  are  still  extant.  Relig- 
ion is  scarcely  mentioned  in  any  of  them.  It  cannot  be  said 
that  Jefferson's  silence  arose  from  any  distaste  for  the  sub- 
ject, for  his  letters  to  other  friends  are  full  of  tlioughts  on 
that  very  theme.  Is  not  this  an  incidental  proof  that  there 
was  no  congeniality  between  Paine's  and  Jefferson's  relig- 
ious views? 

6.  But  my  conclusion  from  Jefferson's  writings  is  by  no 
means  siogular.  It  is  substantially  that  of  nearly  all  his 
standard  biographers.  Even  Parton  calls  Adams  and  Jeffer- 
son -Christians"  (Life  of  Jefferson,  p.  570).  The  Cyclopedia 
Americana  and  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  do  not  intimate 
that  he  was  an  unbeliever.  The  New  American  Cyclope- 
dia in  1864  said:  "Discarding  faith  as  unphilosophical,  he 
became  an  Infidel."  But  the  edition  of  1874  says  simply: 
"  He  carried  the  rule  of  subjecting  everything  to  the  test  of 
abstract  reason  into  matters  of  religion,  venerating  the  moral 
character  of  Christ,  but -refusing  belief  in  his  divine  mis- 
sion,"  i.  e. ,  disbelieving  in  his  divinity.  Quite  a  modification, 
or  rather  recantation,  in  ten  years.  Tucker  says:  **Hi8  relig- 
ious  creed,  as  disclosed  in  his  correspondence,  cannot  per- 
haps be  classed  with  that  of  any  particular  sect;  but  he  was 
nearer  the  Socinian  than  any  other.  In  the  last  years  of  his 
life,  when  questioned  by  any  of  his  friends  on  this  subject, 
he  used  to  say  he  was  an  Unitarian "  (Life  of  Jefferson, 
London,  1837,  vol.  ii,  p.  563).  Bancroft  says:  *'  He  was 
not  only  a  hater  of  priestcraft  and  superstition  and  bigotry 
and  intolerance,  he  was  thought  to  be  indifferent  to  relig- 
ion; yet  his  instincts  all  inclined  him  to  trace  every  fact  to 
a  general  law,  and  to  put  faith  in  ideal  truth;  the  world 
of  the  senses  did  not  bound  his  aspirations,  and  he  believed 
more  than  he  was  himself  aware  of  "  (vol.  v,  p.  323).  Linn 
says:  "However  opposed  Mr.  Jefferson  may  have  been  to 
what  he  considered  the  corruptions  or  abuses  of  Christianity, 
yet  to  the  spirit  and  precepts  of  the  Gospel  he  was  strongly 


CTB  HUMFHBST'BXHNBTT  DISCUBSIOH. 


i 


attached;  and  of  our  Savior  he  was  a  warm  and  professed 
admirer  (Life  of  Jefferson,  Ithaca,  1889,  p.  364.) 

Perhaps  the  best  Life  of  Jefferson  is  that  by  Henry  S. 
Kaudall,  LL.D.  In  the  preparation  of  it  the  author  had  the 
approbation  and  assistance  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  family.  He 
devotes  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  third  volume  to  a  dis- 
cussion of  Jefferson's  religious  belief.  He  denies  emphat- 
ically that  he  was  an  Infidel.  He  shows  that  he  wished  to 
put  a  representation  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  led 
by  the  pOlar  of  fire,  as  a  device  on  the  United  States  seal; 
that  he  once  advocated  the  obeervance  of  a  national  fast; 
that  he  contributed  largely  to  religious  enterprises;  that  he 
attended  the  Episcopal  church  regularly,  and  took  part  in 
the  services;  that  his  wife  was  a  member  of  that  church; 
that  his  children  were  baptiaed  In  it;  and  that  he  himself 
was  buried  according  to  its  rites.  He  was  neither  anti- 
Christian  in  sentiment  nor  unchristian  in  deportment  HSi 
himadf  denied  that  Ae  imm  an  Infid^  «^  daimed  to  be  a 
Chrisiian.  Before  it  can  be  proven  that  he  teas  an  Infidel  it 
must  be  shown  that  he  was  an  unmitigated  hypocrite. 

I  submit  that  I  have  proved  the  following  points: 

1.  That  Washington  was  not  only  a  moral  but  a  religious 

man. 

2.  That  Franklin  was  a  theoretical  and  practical  believer 

!n  Christianity,  growing  in  faith  as  he  advanced  in  years. 
He  was  undecided  respecting  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but 
leaned  to  the  orthodox  side. 

8.  That  Adams  was  an  Unitarian  of  the  Priestley  and 
Channmg  type.  He  believed  in  the  Bible  as  a  divine  reve- 
lation.   Hence,  he  was  not  a  Deist    _ 

4  That  Jefferson  too  was  an  Unitarian,  but  of  somewhat 
looser  views  than  Adams.  If  it  is  difficult  to  reconcile 
some  things  he  said  with  a  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  it  is  equally  difficult,  if  not  much  more  so,  to 
make  the  preponderance  of  his  utterances  to  tally  with 
luadttlity.    Take  the  amrofie  of  what  he  said  about  fellg- 


THE  HUMPanEY-BENXETT  DISCUSSION. 


87 


Ion,  and  you  cannot  but  feel  that  it  is  in  striJci^g  eontrast 
with  what  Paine  published  on  the  same  subject.  If  Chris- 
tianity is  not  entitled  to  him  without  some  qualifications, 
Infidelity  cannot  claim  him  without  discrediting  what  he 
said  of  himself. 

To  Christianity,  then,  and  not  to  Infidelity,  belongs  the 
credit  for  what  Franklin,  Washington,  Adams,  and  Jeffer- 
son did  for  American  liberty. 

In  my  next  I  will  endeavor  to  give  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  about  Thomas  Paine. 

Very  respectfully  yours.  G.H.  Humphbbt. 


silt.    BBNNBTT. 


Rev.  G.  H.  Humphrey,  Dear  Sir:  Should  you,  at  any 
time,  decide  to  bring  out  a  work  entitled,  **  How  to  Make 
Christians  with  Facility,  in  Six  Easy  Lessons,'*  I  think  I 
can  cheerfully  give  you  a  recommendation  for  special 
ability  in  that  line.  By  your  system  almost  any  distin- 
guished man  who  has  passed  away  may  be  shown  to  have 
been  a  good  Christian.  Let  us  try  it  on  a  few  acknowl- 
edged Infidels.  To  begin  with  Thomas  Paine:  1.  He  was 
born  of  religious  parents  who  were  **  theoretically  and  prac- 
tically believers  in  the  Christian  religion";  2.  Among  his 
friends  were  persons  who  were  regarded  as  excellent  Chris- 
tians; 8.  In  his  writings  he  never  denied  the  existence  of 
God,  nor  a  life  beyond  the  grave;  4.  He  said  nothing  disre- 
spectful of  the  author  of  Christianity;  5.  He  advocated  the 
best  of  morals,  and  was  actuated  by  a  deep  love  for  the  hu- 
man race.  Among  the  many  good  things  he  said  were  these 
utterances:  '*  I  believe  in  one  €k)d  and  no  more,  and  I  hope 
for  happiness  beyond  this  life**;  **  I  believe  the  equality  of 
man;  and  I  believe  that  religious  duties  consist  in  doing  ius- 
tice,  loving  mercy,  and  endeavoring  to  make  our  fellow 


ff 


TOm  HTJMPQBBT-BBKNSTT  DISCUSSION. 


creatures  happy";  "It  is  impossible  to  be  a  hypocrite  and  to 
he  brave  at  the  same  time";  "  I  believe  that  any  system  of 
religion  that  shocks  the  mind  of  a  child  cannot  be  a  true 
system";  *'Ohl  ye  that  love  mankind;  ye  that  dare  oppose 
not  only  the  tyranny,  but  the  tyrant,  stand  forth  I  Every 
spot  of  the  Old  World  is  overrun  with  oppression;  Freedom 
has  been  hunted  round  the  globe.  Asia  and  Africa  have 
long  expelled  her.  Europe  regards  her  like  a  stranger,  and 
England  hath  given  her  warning  to  depart.  O,  receive  the 
fugitive,  and  prepare  in  time  an  asylum  for  mankind"; 
"The  world  is  my  country;  to  do  good  my  religion."  A 
man  who  could  pronounce  such  sentiments  as  these  must 
necessarily  be  a  good  and  religious  man,  hence  a  Christian. 
Had  Paine  been  President,  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  an 
effort  would  be  made  to  prove  him  to  have  been  an  excel- 
lent Christian. 

By  a  similar  process  R  G.  IngersoU  can  be  shown  to  be 
ft  Christian.  He  was  bom  of  religious  parents;  his  father 
was  a  clergyman;  he  regularly  received  religions  instruc- 
tion in  his  youth;  his  incentives  are  moral  and  humane;  he 
has  many  friends  who  are  Christians.  He  dined  with  our 
Christian  President,  and  on  Sunday,  too;  he  is  a  friend  to  tbo 
human  race,  and  has  done  naught  to  injure  it.  He  has 
spoken  many  excellent  truths;  many  matchless  utterances 
have  escaped  his  lips.  Such  a  ono  is  a  good  man,  and  hence 
must  be  a  Christian. 

6.  F.  Underwood,  by  a  similar  course  of  reasoning,  can  be 
shown  to  be  a  Christian.  Moral;  religious  parents;  rect;ived 
early  pious  instruction;  is  a  friend  to  mankind;  has  been 
guilty  of  no  immoral  conduct;  faithfully  served  his  country 
in  the  late  wai^he  cannot  be  other  than  a  Christian. 

Even  your  humble  servant,  by  your  proceps,  could  be  made 
to  count  as  a  Christian  were  it  desirable.  Was  born  in  a  Chris- 
tian  land,  of  parents  who  accepted  the  Christian  religion.  His 
mother  was  a  member  of  the  Church;  he  had  the  benefit  of 
early  religious  instruction ;  attended  church  and  Sunday- 


THE  HUM.PaUEY-BENXETT  ©I3CUSSI0N. 


39 


iMhool  regularly  in  childhood;  learned  parts  of  the  Bible  by 
heart;  tried  to  get  religion  at  the  age  of  twelve,  but  was  not 
fully  successful  j  was  more  so  three  years  later;  joined  a 
.  church  ;  believed  in  Jesus,  and  several  times  a  day  for  a  ba- 
ker's dozen  of  years  called  regularly  upon  his  name  and  that 
of  his  illustrious  father;  afterwards  parted  with  some  of  his 
religious  ardor,  though  not  from  any  bad  conduct;  gradu- 
ally lost  confidence  in  prayer,  and  faith  in  what  he  had  pre- 
viously believed.  Since  then  he  has  perhaps  said  some 
things  that  might  be  construed  to  be  not  exactly  Christian- 
like, but  having  killed  nobody;  not  having  taken  anything 
he  could  not  carry  away — if  he  had  been  President,  had  lain 
quietly  in  his  grave  while  a  generation  or  more  had  passed 
over  his  tomb,  and  it  became  desirable  that  he  should  be 
leckoned  among  the  friends  of  Christianity,  the  unfavoral>le 
lemarks  he  has  made  could,  by  your  system,  be  charitably 
overlooked  and  forgotten.    He,  even,  might  be  a  Christirn. 

Even  that  distinguished  but  much-abused  individual,  the 
Devil,  by  your  easy  process  can  be  made  a  very  fair  Chris- 
tian. He  was  of  excellent  origin  or  parentage;  his  early 
-opportunities  for  moral  instruction  were  ot  the  highest  char- 
4u:ter;  but  he  had,  according  to  Milton,  a  little  unpleasant- 
ness in  early  life  with  his  parent  and  was  driven  from 
home.  He  is  said,  on  a  certain  occasion,  to  have  obtruded 
his  advice  upon  an  inexperienced  young  man  and  woman  rel- 
ative to  eating  some  fruit,  and  which  is  believed  to  have  . 
caused  considerable  trouble,  but  it  cannot  be  shown  that  he 
was  immoral  iu  the  transaction.  It  has  repeatedly  been  in- 
timated that  he  did  not  tell  the  truth,  but  if  the  record  is 
•closely  examined,  no  instance  can  be  found  where  he  ever 
told  a  falsehood,  ever  killed  anybody,  ever  wronged 
anybody,  or  even  did  anything  that  was  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  morality  or  the  rules  of  good  society.  I  am 
•sorry  to  say  that  the  same  cannot  be  truthfully  said  of 
his  opponent.  The  Devil  may  be  claimed  as  a  Christian 
Xrom  his  intimacy  and  friendship  with^e  author  of  the  sys- 


ii 


41^  THE  HTJMPHRET-BSITXETT  mSCUSSrcm; 

lem.    They  passed  some  time  in  each  other's  society,  ancl 
made  a  remarkable  exploring  expedition  together.    His  Sa» 
tonic  Majesty  took  his  companion^  first  to  the  pinnacle  of 
the  temple,  theit  to  the  top  of  a  mountain  so  high  that  he 
showed  his  protege  not  only  the  kingdoms  on  that  side  ol 
the  globe  but  on  the  opposite  side  as  well.    He  evinced  a 
disposition  to  enter  into  an  extensive  real  estate  operation 
with  his  friend,  and  proposed  to  transfer  a  very  large 
amount  of  good  land,  town  lots,  mill  sites,  water  privilegeiy 
etc.,  for  a  very  moderate  consideration;  but  it  seems  the 
trade  was  not  perfeeted>  owing,,  perhaps,  to  a  supposed  de- 
lect in  the  title.    His  willingness  to  negotiate,  however,  ia 
not  denied.    It  must  be  admitted,  too,  that  he  has  exhibited 
very  excellent  qualities;  that  he  haa  not  shown  hiniself  im^ 
moral;  has  been  patient  under  obloquy  and  aspersion;  when 
le  has  been  reviled  he  has  reviled  not  again.  When  slander,, 
abuse  and  all  sorts  of  defamation  have  been  continually 
vsed  against  him,  he  has  presented  mi  equable  frame  of  mind 
and  retorted  not;  is  not  vindictive,  ianot  retaliative,  but  en- 
dures his  aggravated  wrongs  with  remarkable  meekness 
and  patience,  never  returning  evil  fcNr  evil  but  rather  good 
lor  evil.    £Ee  has  shown  himself  a  friend  to  the  human  race 
by  befriending  inventors.  Innovators,  and  reformers,  and 
•specially  as  a  patron  ef  science  and  learning.    His  grealt 
Importance  to  the  Christian  system  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
lost  sight  of,  for  he  is  the  most  important  factor  in  the  busi- 
ness.   The  principal  character  borrowed  from  Jewish  the- 
ology could  be  spared  from  the  system  quite  as  well  as  the 
personage  under   consideration.    Without  a   Devil  there 
would  be  little  use  ol  creeds,  churches,  or  preachers.    So 
then,  his  immense  importance  to  the  system,  joined  with  his 
meeknesss,  amiability,  and  his  many  other  excellent  qual- 
kies  of  character,  prove  him,  according  to  your  easy  proc- 
ess, to  be  worthy  to  be  considered  a  Christian,  should  it  be 
deemed  desirable. 
PkuMlon  me  if  I  have  occupied  too  much  space  in  Uhistrat- 


THE  HUMFHRBT  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


41 


rag  your  system.  It  works  so  easily  and  pleasantly  that  it 
is  a  perfect  pleasure  to  put  it  in  operation.  As,  however,  a 
man's  writings  may  be  justly  used  to  show  what  his  opinions 
were,  I  will  refer  to  some  of  Thomas  Jefferson's  in  this  reply, 
he  being  the  individual  at  present  most  under  consideration. 
You  allude  to  Jefferson's  letter  to  his  nephew  and  ward, 
Peter  Carr— allow  me  to  make  a  few  extracts  from  that 
letter  by  way  of  showing  the  quality  of  Jefferson's  Chris- 
tianity: "Fix  Reason  firmly  in  her  seat  and  call  to  her 
tribunal  every  fact,  every  opmion.  Question  with  boldness 
even  the  existence  of  a  God;  because  if  there  be  one,  he 
must  more  approve  the  homage  of  reason  than  that  of  blind- 
folded fear.  .  .  Read  the  Bible  as  you  would  read  Livy 
or  Tacitus.  The  facts  which  arc  within  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature  you  will  believe  on  the  authority  of  the  writer  aa 
you  do  those  of  the  same  kind  in  Livy  or  Tacitus.  .  . 
Those  facts  in  the  Bible  which  contradict  the  laws  of  nature 
must  be  examined  with  more  care  and  under  a  variety  of 
faces.  .  .  For  example,  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  we  are 
told  the  sun  stood  still  several  hours.  Were  we  to  read  that 
fact  in  Livy  or  Tacitus  we  should  class  it  with  their  showers 
ef  blood,  of  speaking  statues,  beasts,  etc.  But  it  is  said  that 
the  writer  of  that  book  was  inspired.  Examine,  therefore, 
candidly  what  evidence  there  is  of  his  having  been  inspired. 
The  pretensioa  is  entitled  to  your  enquiry,  because  millions 
believe  it.  On  the  other  hand,  you  are  astronomer  enough 
to  know  how  contrary  it  is  to  the  law  of  nature  that  a  body 
moving  on  its  axis,  as  the  earth  does,  should  have  stopped, 
should  not  by  that  sudden  stoppage  have  prostrated  animals, 
trees,  buildings,  and  should,  after  a  certain  time,  have  re- 
sumed its  revolutions,  and  that  without  a  second  general 
prostration.  U  this  arrest  of  the  earth's  motion  or  the  ev- 
idence which  afBrms  it  most  within  the  laws  of  probabil- 
ities ?  You  will  next  read  the  New  Testament  It  is  the 
history  of  a  personage  called  Jesus.  Keep  in  your  eye  the 
opposite  pretensions,  1,  of  those  who  say  Ue  was  begotten  bv 


lUii 
• 


42 


THE  HUMPHBST  •  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


l-IIB  HUMPHREY  -  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


43 


iiitf 


11 


.(if 


:i 


i 


0od,  bora  of  a  yirgin,  suspended  and  rerersed  the  lawi  of 
nature  at  will,  and  ascended  bodily  into  heaven;  and  2,  of 
those  who  say  he  was  a  man  of  illegitimate  birth,  of  a  be* 
nevolent  heart,  enthusiastic  mind,  who  set  out  without  pre- 
tensions to  divinity,  ended  in  believing  them,  and  was  pun- 
ished capitally  for  sedition  by  being  gibbeted,  according  to 
the  Roman  law,  which  punished  the  first  commission  of  that 
ofteuse  by  whipping,  and  the  second  by  exile  or  death  in 
furea.  See  this  law  in  the  Digest,  Lib.  €8,  tit.  19,  §  28, 8,  and 
Lipsius,  Lib.  2,  de  cruce,  cap.  2.  These  questions  are  ez« 
amined  in  the  books  I  have  mentioned,  under  the  head  of 
**religion,"  and  several  others.  They  will  assist  you  in  your 
enqairies,  but  keep  your  reason  firmly  on  the  watch  in  read- 
ing them  all.  Do  not  be  frightened  from  this  enquiry  by 
any  fear  of  its  consequences.  If  it  end  in  a  belief  that  there 
is  no  God,  you  will  find  incitements  to  virtue  in  the  comfort 
aod  pleasantness  you  feel  in  its  exercise  and  the  love  of 
others  which  it  will  procure  you.    .    . 

**In  fine,  I  repeat,  you  must  lay  aside  all  prejudice  on  both 
sides,  and  neither  believe  nor  reject  anything  because  any 
other  person  or  description  of  persons  have  rejected  or  be- 
lieved  it.  Your  own  reason  is  the  only  oracle  given  you  by 
heaven,  and  yon  are  answerable  not  for  the  rightness,  but 
uprightness  of  the  decision. 

"  I  forgot  to  observe,  when  speaking  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  you  should  read  all  the  histories  of  Christ,  as 
well  of  those  whom  a  council  of  ecclesiastics  have  decided 
for  us  to  be  pseudo-evangelists,  as  well  as  those  they  named 
evangelists.  Because  these  pseudo- evangelists  pretended 
to  inspiration  as  much  as  the  others,  and  you  are  to  judge 
their  pretensions  by  your  own  reason  and  not  by  the  reason 
of  those  ecclesiastics.  Host  of  these  are  lost  There  are 
some,  however,  still  extant,  collected  by  Fabricus,  which  I 
will  endeavor  to  get  and  send  you." 

I  would  be  pleased  to  extend  these  extracts  did  space  al- 
low, but  from  these  does  it  strike  you  that  he  talked  just  like 


a  Christian  ?    Is  it  not  different  from  the  advice  thai  most  ' 
Christian  uncles  would  give  their  nephews  and  wards? 
Does  it  not,  rather,  sound  like  Infldeliiy?    Did  he  not  give 
too  much  importance  to  Reason  and  not  enough  to  Faiih  t 
Would  Talmage  or  Dr.  Crosby  give  such  advice  ? 

In  1829  the  Memoir  and  Correspondence  of  Jefferson, 
edited  by  his  grandson,  was  published  in  four  volumes,  and 
in  the  same  year  appeared  in  the  New  York  Obs&rv&r  (Presby- 
terian—Sidney E.  Morse,  editor  and  founder),  the  following 
notice  of  the  work,  which  does  not  strike  me  as  being  as 
appreciative  as  one  Christian  ought  to  be  of  the  writings  of 

another: — 

**  The  Memoir  and  Correspondence  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  pre- 
pared by  his  grandson  in  four  vols.,  8vo,  has  just  been  pub- 
lished in  Charlottesville,  Va.,  and  we  observe  that  a  brief 
notice  of  this  work,  expressed  in  terms  of  unreserved  com- 
mendation, is  going  the  rounds  of  the  papers,  and  has  been 
copied  in  some  instances  by  the  editors  of  the  religious  jour- 
nals. Before  religious  men,  and  especially  Presbyterians, 
lend  their  aid  to  the  circulation  of  this  work,  they  would  do 
well  to  examine  its  contents.  Mr.  Jefferson,  it  is  well 
known,  was  never  suspected  of  being  very  friendly  to  ortho- 
dox religion,  but  these  volumes  prove  not  only  that  he  was 

A  DISBELIEVER  IN  A  DIVINE  REVELATION,  BUT  A  SCOFFER 
OF  THE  VERT  LOWEST  CLASS  l" 

What!  by  Presbyterian  authority,  a  scoffer  of  the  very 
lowest  class,  aud  still  a  Christian?  Can  that  be  Christianityt 
This  Presbyterian  brother,  in  quotinor  from  the  volumes, 
among  other  quotations  gave  the  following: 

*•  In  a  letter  to  James  Smith,  written  a  few  weeks  after- 
wards, he  says  of  the  *  doctrine  of  the  Trinity*: 

'*  *  The  hocus-pocus  phantasm  of  a  God,  like  another  Cer- 
berus, with  one  body  and  three  heads,  had  Its  birth  and 
growth  in  the  blood  of  thousands  and  thou'-ands  of  mar- 
tyrs.* 

"In  a  letter  to  John  Adams,  written  in  1823,  he  says: 


a9 


the:  humphrkt-hkjcnett  DiscudsioiC 


THE   HUMPHBET-BEITNETT  DISCUBSIOK. 


40 


■•i. 


n ' '' 


«« 4  rp^  ^^y^  ^>|j  come  wben  tbe  mystical  gcneratioa  of 
Jesus,  by  the  Supreme  Being  as  liis  father,  in  the  womb 
of  a  TirgiB,  will  be  classed  witk  the  generation  oi  Minervft 
In  the  brain  of  Jupiter.' "  Is  that  pretty  good  Christianity? 

"In  a  letter  to  William  Short,  written  in  1823,  he  thua 
speaks  of  Christian  Mimstern  and  the  CkritUan  SabbcUh  : 

'*  *  We  have  most  unwisely  committed  to  the  hierophanta 
of  our  particular  superstition,  the  direction  of  public  opin- 
ion, that  lord  of  the  Universe.  We  hare  given  them  stated 
and  privileged  days  to  collect  and  catecliise  us,  opportuni- 
ties of  delivering  tlieir  waeles  to  tbe  people  in  mass,  and  of 
mouldiug  their  minds  as  wax  in  the  hollow  of  their 
handa' " 

Friend  Humphrey,  do  these  utterances — ^tbose  quoted  from 
Jefferson  particularly—please  you  as  Christian  iojunctions  f 
Did  Thomas  Paine  Eay  anything  more  pointed  and  explicit  ? 
Are  these  the  kind  of  Christian  sentiments  that  you  delight 
to  recommend  to  your  hearers? 

The  l*^esbyteriait  editor  of  the  Presbyterian  Observer,  in 
the  follow  ing»  gave  this  opinion  of  Jefferson— not  very  com^ 
plimentary,  trvly,  for  one  Christian  to  speak  of  another  :— 

**  That  he  was  a  Humanitofrian  €f  the  laweet  elois  and  a  Ma- 
terialist, appears  from  the  following  passage  to  President 
Adams,  written  in  19212: 

**  *But  while  this  Syllabus  (he  says)  is  meant  to  place  the 
character  of  Jesus  in  its  true  and  high  light,  as  no  impostor 
himself,  but  a  great  reformer  of  the  Hebrew  code  of  relig- 
ion, it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  I  am  with  Mm  in  all  hia 
doctrines.  I  am  a  Matebialist;^  he  takes  the  side  of  Spir^ 
itualism}  he  preaches  the  efficacy  of  repentance  towards  the 
forgiveness  of  gin;  I  require  a  cotinterpoise  of  good  works 
to  redeem  it,'  etc. 

*'In  the  same  letter,  after  speaking  of  the  'stupidity of 
some  of  the  evangelists*  and  early  disciples  of  Christ,  and 
the  *  roguery '  of  others,  Jefferson  says  of  Paul  :— 

**  *Qf  tbii  band  of  dapea  and  impostors,  Paul  was  tlit 


great  Coryphaeus,  and  first  corrupter  of  the  doctrines  of 
Jesus.*  *'    Rather  hard  on  Paull 

If  Jefferson  thus  pronounced  himself  a  **  Matebialist,*' 
will  you  not  find  it  rather  hard  work  to  make  him  a  Chris- 
tian in  spite  of  himself?  And  is  there  not  danger  that  you 
may  be  considered  heterodox  for  claiming  as  a  brother 
Christian  one  whom  the  pious  editor  of  the  New  York  Ob* 
server  denounced  as  a  ** Materialist,**  and  "a  scoffer  of  the 
lowest  class'*? 

In  1776,  when  Jefferson  was  in  Paris,  in  a  letter  to  his 
friend,  Mr.  Whyte,  he  used  this  language,  which  gives  a 
clear  view  of  his  opinion  of  the  clergy: 

'*  If  anybody  thinks  that  kings,  nobles  and  priests  are  good 
conservators  of  the  public  happincsss,  send  them  here.  It  is 
the  best  school  in  the  Universe  to  cure  him  of  that  folly.  He 
will  see  here  with  his  own  eyes  that  these  descriptions  of 
men  are  an  abandoned  confederacy  against  the  happiness  of 
the  mass  of  the  people.  The  omnipotence  of  their  effect 
cannot  be  better  proved  than  in  this  country,  where,  not- 
withstanding the  finest  soil  upon  the  earth,  the  finest  climate 
under  heaven,  and  a  people  of  the  most  benevolent,  the 
most  gay  and  amiable  character  of  which  the  human  form  ia 
susceptible;  where  such  a  people,  I  say,  surrounded  by  so 
many  blessings  from  Nature,  are  loaded  with  misery  by 
kings,  nobles,  and  priests,  and  by  them  alone.*'  And  more  in 
the  same  vein. 

As  a  proof  that  Jefferson  did  not  regard  Atheistical  works, 
even,  with  disfavor,  it  may  be  stated  that  he  had  them  in 
his  library,  and  th%t  he  read  them  carefully  and  with  appro- 
bation is  proved  by  the  notes  he  made.  In  D*Holbach*8 
''System  of  Nature,**  the  chief  est  among  the  Atheistical 
works  of  that  day,  Jefferson  made  copious  notes,  most  of 
which  showed  that  he  did  not  disapprove  of  a  majority  of 
the  positions  of  the  author.  Want  of  space  will  not  allow 
them  to  be  quoted  now. 

He  took  no  pains  to  conceal  his  aversion  to  the  Christian 


i 


4) 


THE  nUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


dogma  of  the  Trinity.  In  a  letter  to  Col.  Pickering  lit 
scouted  "the  incomprehensible  jargon  of  the  Trinitarian 
arithmetic,  that  three  are  one  and  one  is  three.*'  Even 
after  he  had  arrived  at  the  age  of  eighty  years  he  declared 
that  in  his  opinion  **  it  would  be  more  pardonable  to  be- 
Heve  in  no  God  at  all  than  to  blaspheme  him  by  the  atro> 
cious  attributes  of  Calvin." 

What  he  thought  of  religious  revivals,  etc.,  may  be  gath- 
ered  from  what  he  said  upon  the  subject  in  a  letter  to  Dr. 
Cooper.  "In  our  Richmond  there  is  much  fanaticism,  but 
chiefly  among  the  women.  They  have  their  night-meetings 
and  praying-parties,  where,  attended  by  their  priests,  and 
sometimes  by  a  henpecked  husband,  they  pour  forth  the  ef- 
fusion of  their  love  to  Jesus,  in  terms  as  amatory  and  carnal 
as  their  modesty  would  permit  to  a  mere  earthly  lover." 
He  said,  too,  •*The  final  and  complete  remedy  for  tlie  fever 
of  fanaticism  is  the  diffusion  of  knowledge.** 

Does  this  language  strike  you  as  being  peculiarly  like  a 
Christian's  7 

I  could  quote  much  more  from  Jefferson  in  a  similar  vein, 
but  I  have  already  occupied  too  much  room  and  will  de- 
fer further  quotations  for  the  present.  If,  however,  your 
confidence  is  still  unshaken  in  the  genuineness  of  his  Chris- 
tianity I  will  have  to  recur  to  his  writings  again.  A  man  ought 
to  know  better  what  he  believes  himself  than  those  who  live 
fifty  years  later,  whether  it  be  Mr.  Randall  or  any  other 
biographer. 

You  admit  that  the  New  American  Cyclopedia  of  1864 
classed  him  as  an  "Infidel."  That  is  high  authority,  and  I 
do  not  wish  to  question  it.  The  effort  ten  years  later  to 
modify  the  opinion,  or  to  explain  it  away,  is  unsuccessful. 
It  must  stand  that  Jefferion  toas  regarded  as  an  Infidel, 

It  strikes  me  that  you  attempt  to  make  too  much  differ- 
ence between  a  Deist  and  a  Theist.  Deism  is  a  belief  in  one 
Ood,  and  Theism  is  nothing  more.  A  Theist  may  or  may 
not  believe  in  revelation  and  in  the  divine  origin  of  the 


THE  HimPHREY-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


47 


Scriptures,  while  a  Deist  Is  generally  supposed  to  not  so  be- 
lieve. That  is  the  only  difference.  Both  equally  discard 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  and  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity. 

I  am  surprised  that,  with  the  fate  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Miller 
before  your  eyes,  you  still  insist  that  '*the  doctrine  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ  is  not  the  dividing  line  between  Infidelity 
and  Christianity,  but  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible.**  You 
seem  a  little  contradictory,  too,  when,  afterwards,  you  al- 
lude to  Christ  as  the  "Founder  of  Christianity.**  If  a  belief  in 
the  Scriptures  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  make  a  Christian, 
the  Scriptures  must  be  the  "Founder  of  Christianity,* 
and  the  Jews  ought  to  be  excellent  Christians,  for  they  ac- 
cept the  divinity  of  more  than  three-fourths  of  the  Bible. 
It  is  a  noticeable  fact  that  the  reputed  "Founder  of  Christian- 
ity** did  not  specially  enjoin  a  belief  in  the  divinity  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  positively  enjoined  a  belief  in  himself.  He 
said  expressly  he  was  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life ;  and  that 
those  who  did  not  believe  in  him  could  not  be  saved  nor  be 
his  disciples.  He  said  in  the  most  positive  manner,  "  He 
that  believelh  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned.*'  Did  Franklin,  Washington, 
Adams,  and  Jcffer&on  believe,  and  were  they  baptized  ?  No. 
Then  they  could  not  be  Christians.  They  were  neither 
believers  nor  can  you  sustain  a  claim  that  they  allied  them- 
selves to  any  Christian  Church.  Peter,  the  leading  disciple, 
and  the  one  who  did  the  heavy  business  of  the  concern,  in 
speaking  of  the  author  of  Christianity,  said:  "  There  is  no 
other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we 
must  be  saved.**  And  when  Paul — who,  you  will  hardly  deny, 
had  something  to  do  towards  establishing  Christianity — 
was  with  Silas,  and  was  asked,  "What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved  t"  he  laconically  replied,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved;**  and  this  injunction  he 
virtually  repeated  in  his  epistles  over  and  over  again.  Did 
be  not  pointedly  say,  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit 
(iveth  life"?    He  said  very  little  about  the  importance  of 


48 


THE  HUMPMBBT-BimWE'Ti'  DISCUSSION. 


THB  EUMPHRET-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


49 


acknowledging  the  diyinitjrof  the  Scriptures,  which  assured- 
ly he  should  have  done  if  it  is,  as  you  assert,  of  more  conse- 
quence tlian  a  belief  in  Christ.  None  of  the  disciples  or 
apostles  laid  much  stress  upon  the  importance  of  a  belief  in 
the  Scriptures,  but  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  they  repre- 
sented as  being  the  sine  qua  nan  of  Christianity.  I 
think  you  will  hardly  contend  that  you  know  better  what 
constitutes  a  Christian  than  did  Christ,  Peter,  Paul,  and 
the  rest  of  the  apostles. 

By  making  a  belief  in  Christ  of  little  or  no  consequence, 
you  practically  occupy  the  same  ground  which  the  Rct.  3ir. 
Miller  does  who  denies  the  Trinity,  and  for  which  he  has 
just  had  a  trial  and  been  expelled  from  the  ministry  for  her- 
esy. With  equal  appropriateness  could  the  Bev.  Mr.  Mott 
point  his  finger  at  you,  as  he  did  at  the  Bey.  Mr.  Miller, 
your  brother  clergyman,  and  say,  "Brother  Humphrey,  I 
charge  you  with  taking  away  my  Lord  and  Savior,  and  I 
don't  know  where  you  have  put  him.  You  have  robbed 
the  character  of  Christ  of  its  most  precious  attributes."  I 
tremble  for  you,  my  friend,  and  almoBt  fear  your  tarn  will 
come  next. 

I  cannot  at  this  time  pay  much  attention  to  the  views  of 
Adams;  and  it  is  hardly  necessary,  for  yon  have  only  shown 
him  to  be  a  Deist  or  a  Theist.  He  surely  did  not  accept 
Jesus  as  the  Divine  Being;  and  the  letters  which  passed  be- 
tween Jefferson  and  himself  establish  the  fact  that  they 
were  of  the  same  opinion  as  to  Jesus  being  Qod.  It  Is  unnec- 
essary to  add  more. 

I  will  make  one  more  quotation  in  reference  to  Franklin 
before  we  leave  him  too  far  in  the  rear.  In  his  Autobiogra- 
phy, p.  166,  he  says:  '*  Some  books  against  Deism  fell  into 
my  hands;  they  were  Said  to  be  the  substance  of  the  ser- 
mons which  had  been  preached  at  Baylis' Lectures.  It  hap- 
pened that  they  wrought  an  effect  on  me  quite  contrary  to 
what  was  intended  by  them.  For  the  arguments  of  the  De- 
ists, which  were  quoted  to  be  refuted,  appeared  to  me  to  h% 


much  stronger  than  the  refutation.  In  short,  I  soon  became 
a  thorough  DeUV^  However  distasteful  the  term  Deist  is  to 
you,  you  here  have  Franklin's  positive  avowal  that  he  be- 
came a  thorough  Deist,  and  if  he  gives  no  intimation  that 
he  changed  from  that  belief,  we  must  conclude  that  it  re- 
mained unchanged.  It  matters  little  what  pious  biogra- 
phers, whether  D.D's  or  LL.D's,  may  say  about  his  being  a 
Christian.  His  own  clear  statement  is  of  more  worth  than  a 
thousand  unfounded  claims. 

I  am  sorry  that  you  deemed  it  necessary  to  make  that  un- 
kind fling  at  Bobert  Dale  Owen  in  connection  with  the 
Katie  King  business.  For  more  than  half  a  century 
he  has  been  a  pi  eminent  man  in  this  country,  and  as  a 
statesman,  as  a  writer,  and  as  a  citizen,  he  has  had  but 
few  superiors.  His  honor  and  truthfulness  have  never 
been  called  in  question.  If,  in  advanced  life,  he  was  de- 
ceived by  a  shrewd  trickster,  it  is  hardly  necessary  or  kind 
to  call  attention  to  it  It  certainly  does  not  argue  that 
he  did  not  truthfully  relate  a  statement  made  to  him  by  the 
Bev.  Dr.  Wilson  over  forty  years  ago.  He  believed  only 
what  he  sato,  while  there  are  millions  of  people  like  yourself 
who  claim  to  be  intelligent,  who  believe  not  only  what  they 
themselves  never  saw,  but  that  which  nobody  else  ever  saw. 

I  wholly  dissent  from  your  summing-up.  You  claim 
to  have  shown  that  Franklin,  Washington,  Adams,  and 
Jefferson  were  Christians.  I  utterly  fail  to  see  that  you 
have  done  anything  of  the  kind.  True,  they  were  moral, 
upright  men,  but  Ihey  did  not  accept  the  leading  dogmas  of 
the  Christian  faith;  they  did  not  believe  that  Jesus  was 
God,  nor  that  he  was  miraculously  begotten  by  a  god,  I 
claim  to  have  shown  that,  being  unbelievers  in  the  Trinity 
and  the  divinity  of  Cnrist,  they  were  not  Christians,  but 
Deists  or,  in  other  words,  InfdeU, 

Pardon  the  length  of  my  remarks.  I  will  try  in  future 
to  be  briefer.  I  wished  to  answer  your  several  positions^ 
that  I  may  be  ready  to  defend  the  great  moral  and  patriotio 


iti< 


m 


Vam  HITMPHRET-BBNNETT  DltCUSSIOlf. 


hero,  Thomas  Paine,  to  whom  you  propose,  in  your  next,  to 
give  a  general  over-hauling.  I  doubt  not  you  will  aim  Co 
«peak  truly  of  him,  but  allow  me  to  say,  if  you  do  him  full 
Justice  you  will  be  about  the  first  Christian  who  has  ever 
done  so.  Very  truly  yours,  D.  M.  B. 


I 


I"  «r 


# 


.  -3 


V 


ft  i 


fl 
* 


MR.     HUMPHRKT. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Bbunett,  Dear  Sir:  I  will  review  your  last 
letter  in  my  next,  and  then  try  to  close  the  discussion  of 
this  proposition.  Let  us  now  endeavor  to  ascertain  what 
were  the  most  prominent /oete  in  connection  with  the  life 
And  labors  of  Thomas  Paine. 

Apart  from  articles  in  Cyclopedias  and  sketches  in  Hia- 
tories,  there  are  five  Lives  of  Paine  still  extant,  though,  un- 
fortunately, they  are  not  all  in  print.  They  are  **  Oldyt',  ** 
Cheetham's,  Bickman's,  Sherwin*s,  and  Valets.  These  are 
«11  alike  marred  by  considerable  passion  either  for  or 
against  their  subject.  The  first  two  were  given  to  coloring 
too  darkly,  and  the  last  three  were  no  less  desperate  as 
whitewashera. 

Paine's  life  divides  itself  naturally  into  three  parts.  The 
first  is  the  Penod  of  his  Obscurity^  extending  from  his  birth 
to  his  departure  for  America.  This  part  of  his  life  may  be 
outlined  in  a  few  words:  Bom  in  Thetford,  England,  Jan. 
29th  1737— goes  to  grammar-school  until  thirteen— hates  the 
dead  languages — staymaker — goes  to  London  and  Dover- 
seaman — settles  at  Sandwich  —  marries— his  wife  dies — 
moves  to  Margate — back  to  Thetford  —  London  again— 
school  teacher — ^goes  to  Lewes — remarries — ^tobacconist  and 
grocer- he  and  his  wife  separate— writes  the  "  Case  of  the 
Excise  officer" — ^returns  to  London — a  business  failure- 
meets  Franklin,  who  encourages  him  to  embark  for 
America. 


THE   HUMrnREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


51 


It  has  been  asserted  that  Paine  was  the  writer  of  the  cel- 
ebrated Junius  Letters,  which  appeared  between  1767  and 
1772.  This  is  not  even  probable.  Those  Letters  exhibit  a 
certain  peculiarity  of  style,  a  knowledge  of  the  classics,  and 
a  familiarity  with  Court  life  and  State  secrets,  which  Paine 
did  not  possess.  The  best  critics  ascribe  those  letters  to 
Philip  Francis  (See  Macaulay's  Essay  on  Warren  Hastings, 
and  Junius  by  Woodfall,  London,  1850,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  11-90). 

This  is  only  equaled  in  absurdity  by  the  claim  that  Paine 
was  afterwards  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence. Historians  uniformly  give  that  credit,  undivided,  to 
Jefferson.  Besides,  if  Paine  was  the  writer  of  that  docu- 
ment, a  lie  has  been  engraved  ou  Jefferson's  monument,  and 
that  at  Jefferson's  own  request  1 

The  Period  of  Paine' 8  Fame  began  with  his  landing  in 
America  in  1774,  and  ended  with  his  return  to  Europe  in 
1787.  On  his  arrival  in  Philadelphia,  his  introduction  by 
Franklin  secured  him  at  once  a  favorable  consideration. 
He  soon  obtained  a  position  as  editor  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Magazine.  Some  of  his  editorials  were  well  written.  The 
breach  with  England  kept  widening.  Paine  took  a  lively 
interest  in  public  affairs.  In  Jan.  of  1776  he  published  his 
•'Common  Sense."  It  had  an  enormous  circulation.  As 
was  shown  in  my  first  letter,  that  pamphlet  did  not  create 
the  idea  of  independence;  but  it  probably  did  more  than 
any  other  publication  to  accelerate,  solidify,  and  energize 
that  idea.  The  Declaration  was  made  in  the  following 
July.  As  the  struggle  continued,  and  the  Colonists  became 
occasionally  disheartened,  Paine  reinspired  them  with  suc- 
cessive numbers  of  the  *'  Crisis,"  until  Independence  was 
established  and  recognized  in  1 783. 

Now,  I  do  most  heartily  acquiesce  in  all  that  such  histori- 
ans as  Botta,  Allen,  Cassell,  Randall,  Morse,  Ramsay, 
Grimshaw,  Gordon,  Bancroft,  and  such  statesmen  as  Mad- 
ison, Rush,  Monroe,  Adams,  Jefferson,  and  Washington 
have  said  in  praise  of  these  productions.    It  was  no  more 


i 


•4 


1 


BA 


THB  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISOUSSION. 


THB  aUMPHRBT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


63 


than  Just  for  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  to  reward  the 
writer  in  a  tangible  way.    Mr.  Paine  deserved  it  all. 

But  was  Paine  an  Infidel  at  this  time  ?  I  am  inclined  to 
think  he  was;  for  he  implies  as  much  in  his  "Age  of  Kea- 
son."  Furthermore,  John  Adams,  speaking  of  an  interview 
with  him  soon  after  the  appearance  of  "  Common  Sense/' 
says:  "I  told  him  that  his  reasoning  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  ridiculous,  and  I  could  hardly  think  him  sincere. 
At  this  he  laughed,  and  said  he  had  taken  his  ideas  on  that 
point  from.  Milton;  and  then  he  expressed  a  contempt  for 
the  Old  Testament,  and  indeed  for  the  Bible  at  large,  which 
surprised  me.  He  saw  that  I  did  not  relish  this,  and  soon 
checked  himself  with  these  words:  'However,  I  have  some 
thoughts  of  publishing  my  thoughts  on  religion;  but  I  be- 
lieve it  will  be  best  to  postpone  it  to  the  latter  part  of  life' " 
(John  Adams*  Life  and  Works,  vol.  11,  p.  608). 

But  if  Paine  entertained  Deistical  views  at  that  time,  he 
did  not  avow  them  publicly.    He  "  checked  himself  '*  in 
that  respect.    There  is  not  a  word  in  anything  he  wrote  be- 
fore 1787  that  would  create  a  suspicion  that  he  did  not  be- 
lieve the  Bible.    On  the  contrary,  his  allusions  to  it  and 
quotations  from  it  invariably  convey  the  impression  that  he 
regarded  it  as  the  Word  of  God.    Witness  a  few  specimens : 
"  *  Not  to  be  led  into  temptation  *  m  the  prayer  of  divinity  it- 
eel/**  (Case  of  the  Excise  Officer,  1772).     "As  the  exalting 
one  man  above  tjie  rest  cannot  be  justified  on  the  equal 
rights  of  nature,  8o  neither  can  it  be  defended  on  the  authority 
of  Scripture;  for  the  will  of  the  Almighty,  as  declared  by  Gideon 
and  the  prophet  Samuel,  expressly  disapproves  of  govern- 
ment by  kings  "  (Common  Sense,  1776).   "  We  claim  broth- 
erhood with  every  European  Christian,  and  triumph  in  the 
generosity  of  the  sentiment  "  (Ibid).     "  Let  a  day  be  sol- 
emnly set  apart  for  proclaiming  the  charter;   let  it  be 
brought  forth,  placed  on  the  divine  law,  the  word  of  God' 
(Ibid).    "  The  writer  of  this  is  one  of  those  few  who  never 
dishonon  religion,  either  by  ridiculing  or  caviling  at  aoj 


denomination  whatsoever"  (Epistle  to  the  Quakers  1776). 
**Iwish,  with  aU  the  devotion  of  a  Christian,  the  names  of 
whig  and  tory  may  never  be  mentioned"  (Crisis  No.  1, 1776). 
** As  individuals  we  profess  ourselves  Christians"  {Ctisva,  No. 
7, 1778).  It  is  clear  from  such  language  as  this  that  Paine 
did  not  speak  like  a  Deist  during  the  "  times  that  tried 
men's  souls." 

There  are,  moreover,  several  circumstances  which  unitci 
to  prove  that  Paine  had  not  aroused  as  much  as  a  suspicion 
that  he  was  a  Deist.  1.  Even  the  most  illiberal  of  Chris- 
tians praised  him  without  reserve — a  thing  they  would 
not  have  done  had  they  surmised  that  he  was  an  Infidel. 
2.  When  he  did  publish  his  Deistical  notions,  the  Chris- 
tian world  was  surprised,  shocked,  and  repelled  from  him. 
Samuel  Adams  said  in  a  letter  to  Paine  in  1803:  "  When  I 
heard  that  you  had  turned  your  mind  to  a  defense  of  infidel- 
ity, I  felt  myself  much  astonished  and  more  grieved." 
Dr.  John  W.  Francis  said:  "The  'Age  of  Reason*  on 
its  first  appearance  in  New  York  was  printed  as  an  ortho- 
dox book,  by  orthodox  publishers,  doubtless  deceived  by  the 
vast  renown  which  the  author  of  '  Common  Sense  *  had  ob- 
tained." Dr.  Rush,  who  was  intimate  with  him  during  the 
Revolution,  did  not  renew  his  acquaintance  after  his  return 
to  America.  3.  When  Rev.  John  Witherspoon  opposed  his 
appointment  as  Secretary  to  the  Committee  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs, he  did  not  mention  Infidelity  among  his  objections  to 
him  (Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  ii,  p.  509). 
4.  ♦*  Oidys,"  who  wrote  in  1791,  and  said  every  evil  thing 
of  him  that  had  even  a  shadow  of  foundation,  did  not  stig- 
matize him  as  an  Infidel.  This  shows  that  up  to  that  time 
his  anti-Christian  sentiments  were  not  publicly  known. 
Had  he  died  before  1787,  or  even  previous  to  1791,  history 
would  not  have  recorded  him  a  Freethinker, 

From  this  it  follows  that  Thomas  Paine  rendered  his  ser- 
vices to  the  came  of  Independence  by  pretending  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian, <md  by  using  Scriptural  arguments/    "The  sword  cf  the 


SI 


THK  HTTMPiniETBBWNETT  DlttCUflSION. 


l! 


i< 


I 

l 


.1 


ifi^VJC,  fo^tc*  i>  (he  Word  of  God"  wati  one  of  the  weapone  tohich 
even  he  had  to  employ  to  secure  the  grand  resuU  / 

Paine  waa  not  much  of  a  statesman.  In  the  words  of 
Madame  Roland,  he  was  *'  better  fitted  to  sow  the  seeds 
of  popular  commotion,  than  to  lay  the  foundation  or 
prepare  the  form  of  goTernment.  He  enkindled  a  rev- 
olution, better  than  he  concurred  in  the  framing  of  a 
constitution.  He  took  up  and  established  those  grand 
principles,  the  exposition  of  which  struck  every  eye,  gained 
the  applause  of  a  club,  or  excited  the  enthusiasm  of  a  tav- 
ern*'(Memoires  Bclatifs  a  la  Revolution  Fran9aise,  Paris, 
1850,  Tome  Sec.  p.  12).  This,  with  his  breach  of  trusi 
when  Secretary  to  the  Committee  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
may  account  for  the  singular  fact  that,  although  he 
remained  in  the  country  over  four  years  after  the  close  of 
the  war,  he  was  never  elected  by  the  people  to  any  posi- 
tion of  honor  I  He  left  America  in  the  very  year  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  framed  ! 

The  Period  of  his  Infamy  opened  with  his  departure  for 
France  in  1787,  and  closed  with  his  life  in  1809.  He  was 
received  with  edat  by  the  French,  on  account  of  his  Ameri- 
can fame.  He  soon  returned  to  England,  where  he  wrote 
his  "  Rights  of  Man."  This,  though  not  the  most  influen- 
tial, was  by  far  the  most  able  and  elaborate  of  his  works. 
Like  his  former  writings,  it  implies  an  indorsement  of 
Christianity.  Jefferson,  and  other  republican  statesmen, 
entertained  a  very  high  opinion  of  it  In  1792  Paine  was 
elected  to  the  French  National  Convention,  where  he  at 
first  exerted  considerable  influence. 

lo  1794  he  wrote  his  "Age  of  Reason."  He  had  no  Bible 
when  he  composed  the  first  part  of  it.  It  does  not  contain 
one  original  thought.  All  its  cavils  had  been  familiar  to 
the  world  ever  since  the  days  of  Celsus  and  Porphyry.  It 
owes  its  notoriety  not  to  its  matter  but  to  its  manner. 
Many  Infidels  of  the  higher  type  are  ashamed  of  it.  Such 
men  as  Strauss,  Renan,  Colenso,  Comte,  Huxley,  Mill,  Tjw 


TSB  HUMPHBET-BttNNBTT  DlSCmsIOK. 


55 


dall,  etc.,  take  no  account  of  it.  Many  Christians  that  are 
styled  *'  liberal "  have  not  hid  their  disrespect  for  it.  De 
Quincy  alludes  to  its  author  contemptuously  as  "Tom 
Paine"  (Essay  on  "Protestantism").  Referring  to  it  Parton 
says:  "I  think  his  Judgment  must  have  been  impaired  be- 
fere  he  could  have  consented  to  publish  so  inadequate  a 
performance  "  (Life  of  Jefferson,  p.  592).  Theodore  Parker 
said:  "Paine's  theological  works  are  not  always  in  good 
taste,  nor  does  he  always  understand  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  he  comments  upon "  (Life  and 
Correspondence,  vol.  ii,  p.  425).  John  Adams*  Works 
abound  with  such  expressions  as  the  following:  "The 
worthless  and  unprincipled  writings  of  the  profligate  and 
impious  Thomas  Paine  "  (vol.  ii,  p.  153).  "  Let  the  black- 
guard Paine  say  what  he  will "  (vol.  iii,  p.  421).  "  That  in- 
solent blasphemer  of  all  things  sacred,  and  transcendent 
libeller  of  all  that  is  good,  Tom  Paine  "  (vol.  iii,  p.  93). 
•*  His  billingsgate,  stolen  from  Blount's  Oracles  of  Reason, 
from  Bolingbroke,  Voltaire,  Berenger,  &c.,  will  never  dis- 
credit Christianity  "  (vol.  ix,  p.  627). 

In  1796  he  published  his  Letter  to  Washington,  wherein 
he  abuses  the  leading  statesmen  of  America,  and  most  of  all 
Gen.  Washington  himself.  It  concludes  with  the  following 
sentence:  "And  as  to  you,  Sir,  treacherous  in  private  friend- 
ship (for  so  you  have  been  to  me,  and  that  in  the  day  of 
danger),  and  a  hypocrite  in  public  life,  the  world  will  be 
puzzled  to  decide,  whether  you  are  an  APOSTATE  or  an 
IMPOSTOR?  Whether  you  have  abandoned  good  princi- 
ples, or  whether  you  ever  had  any?"  No  wonder  Oliver  Wol- 
cott  wrote  to  Alex.  Hamilton:  "  Tom  Paine  has  published  a 
book  against  the  President,  containing  the  most  infamous 
calumnies"  (Works  of  Hamilton,  vol.  vi,  p.  185). 

Paine  became  very  unpopular  in  France.  In  a  letter  to 
Robert  Morris,  dated  Sainport,  June  25th,  1793,  Gouverneur 
Morris  wrote:  '*He  (Paine)  is  so  completely  down  that  he 
would  be  punished  if  he  were  not  despised  "  (Life  of  Qouv 


t 


^ 


I 


THE  BmnPHRBT  -  BIUK'IT  DI8CI788ION. 


Morris  toI.  iii,  p.  46).    There  were  but  few  regrets  wheB 
he  came  away. 

In  1803  he  returned  to  the  United  States.  In  recoirnition 
of  hia  RevolutioDary  services,  Jefferson  proTidcd  him  with 
a  safe  passage  in  a  man-of-war,  and  entertained  liim  on  his 
arrival.  He  was  either  accompanied  or  soon  followed  by 
a  Mrs.  Bonneyille  with  her  three  children,  but  without  her 
husband.  M-r.  Booneyille  neither  came  after  her,  nor,  as  far 
as  is  known,  corresponded  with  her  afterwards  (Sherwin's 
Life  of  Paine,  p.  209).  Paine  supported  her  until  his  death, 
and  bequeathed  a  large  share  of  his  property  to  her  and 
her  family.  Vale  says  he  was  "godfather**  to  her  youngest 
child,  '*  who  had  been  named  after  him  "  (Life  of  Paine,  p. 
145).  Cheetham  intimates  that  Paine  was  that  boy's  man' 
father  (Life  of  Paine,  p.  237).  For  my  part,  I  suspend 
judgment  in  regard  to  this  whole  affair.  I  will  only  say 
that,  were  a  clergyman  to  do  precisely  the  same  thing,  every 
Infidel  paper  in  Christendom  would  pronounce  him  a  vile 
hypocrite. 

Paine  was  a  drunkard  in  his  latter  years.  Only  Vale, 
who  wrote  his  biography  about  twenty-eight  years  after  his 
death,  twenty-eight  years  later  than  Cheetham,  and  eigh. 
teen  years  later  than  Sherwin  and  Hickman,  has  had  the  des- 
perate hardihood  to  deny  this  allegation.  Sherwin  admits 
the  charge,  and  Rickman  does  not  dispute  it.  Joel  Barlow 
said  explicitly  that  '*hegave  Jiimaeifwry  much  to  drink"  (Vale*s 
Life  of  Paine,  p.  136.)  We  have  already  seen  that  John 
Adams  pronounced  him** profligate.**  Gouverneur Morris 
testified  that  he  was  * 'besotted  from  morning  till  night**  in 
France  (Sparks*  Life  of  Qouverneur  Morris,  vol.  ii,  p.  409; 
vol.  iii,  p.  46).  Cheetham  makes  this  so  clear  that  no  one 
can  reasonably  question  it.  The  Encyclopedia  Britannica, 
the  English  Cyclopedia,  and  the  Cyclopedia  Americana  all 
assert  the  same  thing.  Parton  says  "  poor  Paine  '*  could 
not  "represent  a  clean,  sober,  orderly  people  in  a  foreign 
land"  (Life  of  Jefferson,  p.  606).    Lossing  says:   "Paio^ 


TXB  KUMPHBBT- BENNETT  DISCUSSION, 


fit 


Vecame  very  iniempefate^  and  fell  low  in  the  social  scale,  not 
only  on  account  of  his  beastly  liabiU,  but  because  of  his  blas- 
phemous tirade  against  Christianity "  (Lives  of  Celebrated 
Americans,  p.  229). 

He  did  not  always  tell  the  truth.  In  Crtm  No.  2  he  de- 
clared that  he  "  never  published  a  syllable  in  England  in 
his  life."  Rush  and  John  Adams  testify  that  he  told  them 
the  same  thing.  But  it  is  now  known  and  acknowledged 
that  he  did  write  at  least  the  *'  Case  of  the  Excise  Officer" 
in  1772.  And  Ihe  claim  that  he  wrote  Junius  Letters  is  an 
admission  by  even  his  admirers  that  his  word  is  not  always 
to  be  believed.  Cheetham  says  "he  was  not  always  vera- 
cious*' (p.  29).  John  Adams  remarks  in  his  Autobiography; 
'*  At  this  day  it  would  be  ridiculous  to  ask  any  questions 
about  Tom  Paine's  veracity,  integrity,  or  any  other  virtue" 
(Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  610). 

He  was  self-righteous  and  self-conceited.  He  said  in  his 
Will,  written  by  himself:  **  I,  Thomas  Paine,  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  author  of  the  work  entitled  Common  Sense, 
written  in  Philadelphia,  in  1775,  and  published  in  that  city 
the  beginning  of  January,  1776,  which  awaked  America  to 
a  Declaration  of  Independence,  on  the  fourth  of  July  follow- 
ing, which  was  as  fast  as  the  work  could  spread  through 
such  an  extensive  country"!  **!  have  lived  an  honest  and  use- 
ful life  to  mankind;  my  time  has  been  spent  in  doing  good." 
No  wonder  Paine  disliked  a  Book  which  says:  **  Let  another 
man  praise  thee,  and  not  thine  own  mouth'*  (Prov.  xxvii,  2). 
With  such  self-puffing  before  us,  we  cannot  but  believe  Du- 
mont:  "  His  egregious  conceit  and  presumptuous  self-suf- 
ficiency quite  disgusted  me.  He  was  drunk  with  vanity. 
If  yo'i  believed  him,  it  was  he  who  had  done  everything  in 
.irnerlca.  He  was  an  absolute  caricature  of  the  vainest 
t;f  Frenchmen"  etc.,  etc.  (Recollections  of  Mirabeau,  Lon- 
<:oa,  1832,  p.  271). 

I  do  not  relish  this  recounting  of  a  dead  man's  faults.    I 
U4I  it  iu  order  that  the  whole  truth  may  be  known  about 


THB  MUHrUKBI-BENRnT  DncmoiDiR 


t 


'I 


n 


Thomaa  Paine.  So  maay  attempts  hare  been  made  of  lattf* 
to  canoniie  and  apotheosize  this  man  that  an  exposure  i» 
absolutely  necessary.  The  *'  testimonials  "  to  bis  *^  merits '" 
that  axe  so  often  paraded  are  frequently  garbled  and  mis- 
leading. And  they  are  seldom  taken  from  the  original 
sources.  There  is  so  mucb  second-hand  material— so  much- 
of  quoting  quoters  of  ^oted  quotatiOM  in  tbis  matter,  that 
it  is  become  quite  a  trial  to  one's  patience. 

Bf  way  <rf  recapitulating  and  summing  upi  I  will  refer 
you  to  the  following  points: 

1.  The  *'  Testimonials  to  the  Merits  of  Thomas  Paine, •*" 
which  are  so  triumphantly  cited,  are  mostly  from  Christian 
men,  and  refer  mdimvdf  to  hlapolitieal  services  imd  writings. 
8.  Rune  was  a  man  of  talent  His  style  is  very  readable. 
He  might  have  excelled  as  a  poet  or  engineer,  naless  thai» 
as  a  political  pamphleteer. 

3.  His  assistance  to  the  cause  of  Independence  was  very 
great.  Bt  did  not,  however,  render  it  m  mn  Infidd,  but  met 
Christian,  using  Scriptural  argumenU,  and  appeeding  to  the 
prevalent  religioua  belief.  Menee,  InJideUty  dstervee  m  eredi$ 
whaiewrfoT  hie  Rnolutionarjf  eermeee, 

4  He  had  his  good  traita  He  was  honest  Nor  was  h» 
uncharitable.  He  abstained  from  profanity,  and  rebuked 
it  in  others.  He  opposed  slavery.  Many  will  endorse  hi» 
condemnation  of  Masomy.  He  was  not  the  worst  kind  of 
Infldel.  He  believed  in  a  personal  God.  He  considered 
"Atheism  a  scandal  to  human  nature."  In  the  language  of 
Col.  IngeisoU,  an  Atheist,  •*he  was  orthodox  compared  with 
the  Infidels  of  to-day."  He  held  his  opinions  sincerely. 
He  died  as  he  had  lived,  a  Deist 

5.  His  latter  years  were  neither  hAppy  nor  irreproachable. 
His  former  friends  had  mostly  deserted  him.  He  waa 
peevish,  penurious,  quarrelsome,  egotistic,  and  intemper- 
ate. And  he  maintained  to  the  last  a  very  queer  relation  to 
anoUMs  man's  wifa.       Youis  very  truly 

O.  H.  HuMraB£Y. 


.1 

•■i 


TBB  HtJMPBRST-BfiNKETT  blBCCSSloK. 


60 


MR.    BBNHBTT. 

Rby,  G.  H.  Hxjmphrby,  I>ear  Sir:  I  can  see  but  little 
connection  between  the  character  and  habits  of  Tliomas 
Paine  and  the  subject  we  have  under  discussion,  but  I  nev- 
ertheless have  no  objection  to  considering  either  in  this 
reply. 

In  the  main,  I  think  you  fair  and  candid  in  your  treat- 
ment of  Paine  and  in  the  credit  you  accord  him  for  the  ser- 
vices he  performed,  but  you  repeat  some  of  the  slanders 
that  have  been  so  industriously  circulated  against  him  by 
his  enemies.  In  the  early  days  of  the  Republic  bis  labors 
were  duly  appreciated,  and  he  was  accredited  with  patriot- 
ism, devotion,  and  great  moral  courage,  and  had  he  never 
written  anything  to  offend  bigoted  sectarians,  his  praises 
would  have  been  loudly  sung  to  this  day,  and  the  entire 
country  would  be  proud  to  honor  his  memory;  but  because 
he  had  the  candor  to  express  his  honest  convictions  upon 
theological  subjects,  and  to  differ  materially  from  the  pop- 
ular current  of  thought,  he  has  been  most  vilely  traduced 
therefor;  and,  besides,  a  persistent  effort  has  been  made  to 
belittle  his  services  in  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  and  to 
blacken  his  name  and  reputation  in  every  possible  manner. 
You  show  more  fairness  in  this  respect  than  many  others, 
and  you  are  entitled  to  much  credit  for  it. 

IngersoU  states  the  case,  with  much  clearness  and  truth, 
thus:  "At  the  close  of  the  American  Revolution  no  one 
stood  higher  in  America  than  Thomas  Paine.  The  best, 
the  wisest,  the  most  patriotic  were  his  friends  and  admir- 
ers, and  had  he  been  thinking  only  of  his  own  good  he 
might  have  rested  from  his  trials  and  spent  the  remainder 
of  his  life  in  comfort  and  in  ease.  He  could  have  been 
what  the  world  is  pleased  to  call  respectable.  He  could  have 
died  surrounded  by  clergymen,  warriors,  and  statesmen. 
At  his  death  there  would  have  been  an  imposing  funeral, 
allies  of  carriages,  civic  societies,  salvos  of  artillery,  a  na- 


-BUmBTT  AlSCVrSBION. 


♦1/ 


lion  in  moiimlDg,  and,  sbore  all,  a  aplendid  monumeot  coV* 
ered  with  lies.    He  chose  rather  to  benefit  mankind.    At 
that  time  the  seeds  sown  by  the  great  Infidels  were  begin- 
ning to  bear  fruit  in  Prance.    The  people  were  beginning 
to  think.    The  Eighteenth  Century  was  crowning  its  gray- 
hairs  with  the  wreath  of  Progress;  on  every  hand  Science 
was  bearing  testimony  against  the  Church.     Voltaire  had 
filled  Europe  with  light.    D'Holbach  was  giving  the  ilite  of 
Paris  the  principles  contained  in  his  •*  System  of  Nature." 
The  Encyclopedists  had   attacked   superstition  with  in- 
formation  for  the   masses.     The   foundation   of  things 
began  to  be  examined.    A  few  had  the  courage  to  keep 
their  shoes  on  and  let  the  bush  burn.     Miracles  began 
to  get  scarce.    Everywhere  the  people  began  to  enquire. 
America  had  set  an  example  to  the  world.    The  word  of 
Liberty  was  in  the  mouths  of  men,  and  they  began  to  wipe 
the  dust  from  their  knees.    The  dawn  of  a  new  day  »p. 
peared.    Thomas  Paine  went  to  France.     Into  the  new 
movement  he  threw  all  his  energies.    His  fame  had  gone 
before  him,  and  he  was  welcomed  as  a  friend  to  the  human 
race,  and  as  a  champion  of  free  government." 

It  is  pleasant,  in  recalling  the  early  services  of  Paine  in 
this  country,  to  read  what  distinguished  persons  said  of 
his  efforts  before  the  religious  element  of  the  country  be- 
came embittered  against  him.  I  will  not  take  the  space 
here  to  quote  but  few  of  th«  commendations  of  Paine  for 
his  heroic  labors  in  the  cause  of  American  Independence. 
None  excelled  him  in  earnestness  and  courage,  and  he  was 
in  advance  of  the  masses  of  tho  Colonists  in  daring  to  de- 
clare independence  of  Great  Britain.  It  was  Paine  who 
first  openly  suggested  that  the  Colonies  disconnect  them- 
selves from  the  parent  government.  He  was  the  first  to  pro- 
pose an  independent  nationality,  and  to  give  a  name  to  the 
incipient  nation.  It  was  bis  pen  that  first  wrote  the  grand 
words—"  TU  Free  and  IndependerU  8taUs  of  Amenea." 
Tho  gieat  results  produced  by  his  pamphlet,  "Commoa 


THB  HUMPHRBT-BSNNBTT  DISCUSSION, 


Gl 


Sense,"  can  hardly  be  over-estimated.  It  did  just  what 
was  necessary  to  be  done  to  arouse  the  young  country  to 
the  point  of  resistance.  The  effect  it  produced  was  unpar- 
alleled. It  awakened  the  most  active  enthusiasm  in  the 
breasts  of  the  Colonists.  It  performed  an  important  part 
in  the  great  drama,  which  if  it  had  been  omitted,  success 
would  never  have  been  gained.  I  claim  that,  if  with  that 
pamphlet  enthusiasm  was  aroused  and  victory  ultimately 
achieved,  it  was  a  most  important  factor  in  the  great 
caiise,  and  equal  at  least  to  any  other  portion  of  the  means 
employed.  Without  it  independence  would  not  have  been 
declared  nor  gained,  and  with  it  both  were  accomplished. 
Hence,  to  the  author  of  *'  Common  Sense"  America  owes 
her  liberty  to-day. 

Edition  after  edition  of  the  brave  little  work  was  issued. 
It  circulated  in  every  direction.  It  was  read  at  every  fire- 
side, whether  in  the  farmhouse  or  in  the  tented  camp,  and 
many  times  from  the  pulpit  where  the  people  gathered  for 
worship.  Its  arguments  were  unanswerable;  its  reasoning 
was  irresistible;  and  its  logic  most  convincing.  Well  did 
Major-General  Charles  Lee  express  the  truth  In  a  letter  to 
Gen.  Washington  two  or  three  weeks  after  the  pamphlet 
had  appeared,  when  he  said:  "Have  you  seen  the  Pam- 
phlet "Common  Sense"?  I  never  saw  such  a  masterly, 
irresistible  performance.  I  own  myself  convinced  by  its 
arguments  of  the  necessity  of  separation."  Subsequently, 
in  referring  to  this  work  of  Paine,  he  said:  "  He  burst  forth 
on  the  world  like  Jove  in  thunder." 

Samuel  Bryan,  in  speaking  of  "Common  Sense,"  said: 
"This  may  be  called  the  book  of  Genesis,  for  it  was  the  be- 
ginning. From  this  book  spread  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, and  not  only  laid  the  foundation  of  liberty  in 
our  own  country,  but  the  good  of  mankind  throughout  the 

world." 

Lossing,  in  his  "Field  Book  of  the  Revolution,"  said: 
•*  *  Common  Sense*  was  the  earliest  and  most  powerful  ap- 


m 


THB  HtTMPHIlKT-BBNKETT  DISCUSSION. 


THB  HUMPHKBT-BENNETT  l>ISCIT8SION. 


83 


pMl  in  belialf  of  independence,  and  probably  did  more  to 
fix  that  idea  firmly  in  the  public  mind  than  any  other  in- 
strumentality." 

Morse,  in  his  "Annals  of  the  BeTolution/'  said:  "The 
change  in  the  public  mind  in  consequence  of  *  Common 
Sease  *  is  without  a  parallel.'* 

Wm.  Howitt,  in  "Casseli's  Illustrated  History  of  Eng- 
land," says:  "  There  waa  no  man  in  the  Colonies,  neverthe- 
less, who  contributed  so  much  to  bring  the  open  Declaration 
of  Independence  to  a  crisis  as  Thomas  Paine.  This  pam- 
phlet ('Common  Sense*)  was  the  spark  which  was  all  that 
was  needed  to  Are  the  train  of  Independence.  It  at  once 
seized  on  the  imagination  of  the  public;  cast  all  other 
writers  in  the  shade,  and  flew  in  thousands  and  tens  of 
thousands  all  orer  the  Colonies.  .  .  .  During  the  winter 
and  spring  this  lucid  and  admirably  reasoned  pamphlet  was 
read  and  discussed  everywhere  and  by  all  classes,  bringing 
the  conviction  that  immediate  independence  was  necessary. 
The  common  fire  blazed  up  in  Congress,  and  the  thing  was 
done." 

Henry  G.  Watson,  in  his  "  History  of  the  United  States," 
says:  "  'Common  Sense,'  written  by  Thomas  Paine,  giving 
in  plain  language  the  advantages  and  necessity  of  inde- 
pendence, effected  a  complete  revolution  in  the  feelings  and 
sentiments  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people." 

Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Jackson,  and 
many  other  distinguished  personages,  bore  honorable  testi- 
mony to  the  great  services  performed  by  Paine  but  want  of 
room  must  prevent  further  quotations  now. 

Possibly  the  great  good  which  was  accomplished  by 
'*  Common  Sense  *'  was  only  equaled  by  the  grand  results 
produced  by  "The  Crisis.*'  These  were  issued  at  irregular 
periods  during  the  great  struggle  and  when  the  exigencies 
of  the  times  most  demanded  their  aid.  The  contest  was  a 
long  and  unequal  one  on  the  part  of  the  feeble  Colonists. 
The  people  were  poor,  and  the  army  was  badly  supplied 


»with    arms,  provisions,    and    clothing,    and    they    were 
contending  with  the  most  powerfid  nation  in  the  world, 
ft   is  not  strange  that  desertions  were  very  nume^ouf^ 
that  the  half-starved  army  became  decimated,  and  that 
ithe   greatest   gloom  spread  over  the  entire   land.    Tbe 
€lrst   number  of  *'The  Crisis"  was    issued    at  the  time 
when  General  Washington  was  compelled,  bef ofc  superior 
forces,  to  retreat  from  this  <^ty  across  N«w  Jersey,  when, 
*y  numerous  desertions,  tbe  army  had  become  largely  re- 
*duced,  and  when  the  greatest  despondency  had  settled  over 
the  entire  country.   Then  it  was  that  Paine^s  burning  words 
^ngovCT  the  land:  "These  are  the  times  that  try  men's 
souls.    The  summer  soldier  and  the  sunshine  patriot  will  in 
this  crisis  shrink  from  the  service  of  his  country,  but  he 
that  sUnds  it  now  deserves  the  thanks  of  man  and  woman. 
Tyranny,  like  heH,  is  not  easily  oonquered,  yet  we  have 
this  consolation  with  us:  the  harder  the  conflict,  the  more 
;glorious  the  victory;  what  we  obtain  too  cheaply,  we  es- 
teem too  lightly."    *'  Every  generous  person  should  say,  *If 
there  must  be  war,  let  it  be  in  my^ay,  that  my  ^hild  may 
liave  peaoe.» "  "  Hd  that  rebels  against  reason  is  a*eal  rebel; 
t)ut  he  that  in  defense  of  reason  rebels  against  tyranny  has 
abetter  right  to  the  title  of  'The  Defender  of  the  Faith' 
than  (Jeorge  the  Third." 

The  trst  number  of  "TheOrisls"  was  read  in  ewry  oamp, 
by  every  corporal's  guard,  and  by  every  fireside  over  the 
land,  and  the  stirring  appeals  of  Paine  had  a  wonderful  ef- 
feet;  desertions  were  greatly  lessened,  enthusiasm  was  re- 
^lindled,  enlistments  were  revived,  and  new  <sourage  was 
Imparted  to  the  whole  <JOunta^. 

The  success  of  the  struggle  was  most  unpromising.  The 
fate  of  the  country  was  like  a  balance,  with  the  side  of  the 
<k)lonist3  about  to  "kick  the  beam."  It  was  the«ritical  mo- 
«ient  of  the  young  nation's  existence.  Something  had  to  be 
done  promptly  or  the  cause  was  lost.  Paine  afforded  th^ 
jdd;  lie  Javed  the  nation  he  had45alled  into  bein^  and  had 


$4 


TH»  BtrMPHRET  •  BSNNXTT  DfeCUfiOEOK 


> 


I 


•hristened.    May  the  people  of  thi«  country  never  forget  tJb^ 
great  debt  they  owe  this  man.    Without  his  services  na 
lioaal  iadependence  would  not  have  been  secured. 

I  was  nearly  prepared  by  your  third  letter  for  your  at- 
tempt to  count  Paine  a  Christian  ^  at  a)^  events  when  h» 
wrote  *•  Common  Sense  "  and  **  The  Crisis,"  as  he  quoted  a 
passage  of  Scripture  or  two  and  did  not  take  the  occasion 
to  present  his  theological  views;  but  the  quotations 
you  give  from  Adams,  and  Paine's  own  words  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  '*Age  of  Beason,"  effectually  refute  the 
allegation  that  his  religious  opinions  were  of  recent  date. 
It  was  obviously  improper  to  introduce  theology  into 
"Common  Sense,  "  "The  Crisis,"  or  "The  Eights  of  Man;'' 
and  he  showed  his  good  sense  by  not  obtruding  religious 
beliefs  into  political  essays  or  discussions.  Had  he  done  so,, 
you,  doubtless,  would  have  blamed  him  for  it  far  more  than 
you  now  do  for  the  omission. 

Tou  quote  a  woman  to  show  that  Paine  was  not  a  states- 
man. Unless  you  can  find  a  man  or  two  among  the  thou- 
sands who  knew  him  who  expressed  a  similar  opinion,  it 
will  be  hardly  Just  to  condemn  him  on  that  authority  alone 
as  not  being  a  statesman.  Without  doing  yourself  or  Paine 
any  injustice  you  might  have  quoted  the  lady  a  little  more 
fully,  where  she  says,  "The  boldness  of  his  conception, 
the  originality  of  his  style,  the  striking  truths  which  he 
boldly  throws  out  in  the  midst  of  those  whom  they  cJffend» 
must  necessarily  have  produced  great  effects." 

The  portion  of  Paine's  life  after  1787,  when  he  went 
to  France,  you  are  pleased  to  term  The  Period  cf  his 
Infamy.  There  you  assuredly  wrong  Paine  and  yourself. 
It  was  far  from  being  a  '*  period  of  infamy."  There  was  ne 
such  period  in  Paine's  life.  His  career  in  Europe  may  well 
be  called  glorious.  After  visiting  France,  besides  attending 
to  the  introduction  and  manufacture  of  an  iron  bridge  he 
had  invented  in  this  country,  he  visited  his  aged  mother, 
where  he  passed  some  limt.  and  ministered  to  her  neces^ 


THE  HUMPHREY -BENNETT  WflCUSSION. 


C5 


ties  It  was  during  what  you  characterize  as  the  period  of 
Paine's  infamy  that  he  wrote  the  •*  Rights  of  Man,"  one  of 
the  grandest  pleas  for  Humanity  ever  made;  a  production 
that  has  won  encomiums  from  men  of  the  very  highest 
ability  and  distinction.  Richard  Henry  Lee,  in  acknowl- 
edging to  Gen.  Washington  the  receipt  of  a  copy,  said:  "It 
is  a  performance  of  which  any  man  might  be  proud;  and  I 
most  sincerely  regret  that  our  country  could  not  have  of- 
fered sufficient  inducement  to  have  retained  as  a  permanent 
citizen  a  man  so  thoroughly  republican  in  sentiment  and 
practice  in  the  expression  of  his  opinions. "  In  reference  to 
that  production.  Lord  Erskine  remarked:  "Mr.  Paine  spoke 
to  the  people,  reasoned  with  them,  told  them  they  were  bound 
by  no  subjugation  to  any  sovereignty  further  than  their  own 
benefit  connected  them,"  Andrew  Jackson  said;  "Thomas 
Paine  needs  no  monument  made  by  hands;  he  has  erected 
himself  a  monument  in  the  hearts  of  all  lovers  of  liberty. 
The  *  Rights  of  Man'  will  be  more  enduring  than  all  the  pUes 
of  marble  and  granite  man  can  erect." 

Napoleon  Bonaparte,  even,  by  way  of  high  compliment 
to  Mr  Paine,  said:  "  A  statue  of  gold  ought  to  be  erected 
to  him  in  every  city  in  the  Universe."  He  added,  that  he 
slept  with  "  The  Rights  of  Man  "  under  his  prllow,  and  he 
pressed  Mr  Paine  to  honor  him  with  his  correspondence 
and  his  advice. 

It  certainly  was  not  infamous  to  be  promptly  declared  a 
citizen  of  France,  and  to  be  elected  to  the  National  Assem- 
bly from  four  different  Departments.  His  career  m  that 
body  was  eminently  honorable.  He  was  early  appointed 
one  of  the  Committee  to  draft  a  Constitution  for  that  coun. 
trv  He  first  made  himself  unpopular  by  his  humane  de- 
f en'se  of  the  unfortunate  king,  Louis  XVI,  whom  he  wished 
to  save  from  death  and  recommended  that  he  be  sent  to 
America.  For  this  noble  act,  IngersoU  pays  this  mented 
tribute:  "  Search  the  records  of  the  world  and  you  will  find 
Sw  sublimer  acts  than  that   of    Thomas  Paine  voting 


^•^ 


"'1 


TBI  HUlCPHBVr-BBNKBTT  11IBCU88IOV. 


against  the  king's  death.  He  the  hater  of  despotlBm,  the 
abboner  of  monarchy,  the  champion  of  the  rights  of  man, 
the  republican,  accepting  death  to  save  the  life  of  a  deposed 
tyrant— of  a  throneless  king.  This  was  the  last  grand  act 
ot  his  political  life—the  sublime  conclusion  of  his  political 
career."  But,  for  this  humane  action,  an  insane  people 
threw  him  into  prison,  and  by  the  merest  chance  he  escaped 
the  guillotine.  In  my  humble  opinion  it  is  well  for  the 
world  that  he  escaped  death  at  that  time.  Otherwise  his 
"Age  of  Reason  "  would  never  have  appeared. 

This,  his  last  great  work,  was  written  under  the  immedi- 
ate apprehension  of  death,  in  a  spirit  of  honesty,  boldness, 
and  fairness  rarely  equaled.    He  certainly  did  not  write 
for  popuhirity,  for  he  took  the  unpopular  side,  but  im 
penned  what  he  believed  to  be  the  truth.    For  this  act 
of  self-sacrifice  you  and  the  Christian  world  are  ready  to 
consign  him  to  the  lowest  degree  of  degradation  and  in- 
famy.   Why  is  this  so  ?    Because  he  was  an  honest  man, 
and  uttered  just  what  he  believed,  though  he  shocked  the 
prejudices  of    Christendom.     He  found    contradictions, 
absurdities,  and  obscenity  in  the  Bible,  and  had  the  candor 
and  honesty  to  say  so.    Can  you  say  he  did  not  find  them 
there?    If  you  do,  I  think  I  can  easily  point  out  your  error. 
Was  it  so  wrong  for  FUne  to  give  his  real  convictions  that 
he  should  be  doomed  to  the  realms  of  infamy  forever? 
No!  Ko!  Kol    Rather  let  p»ons  be  sung  to  his  memory,  so 
long  as  truth  is  superior  to  superstition  and  error. 

Of  the  *•  Age  of  Reason  "  you  say:  •*  It  does  not  contain 
one  original  thought.  All  its  cavils  had  been  familiar  to 
the  world  ever  since  the  days  of  Celsus  and  Porphyry.  It 
owes  its  notoriety  not  to  its  matter,  but  to  its  manner. . 
Many  Infidels  of  the  higher  type  are  ashamed  of  it."  Allow 
me  to  say  that  1  think  in  this  language  you  do  violence  to 
truth.  A  more  original  work  of  the  kind  than  Paine'a 
'*Age  of  Reason  "  has  not  been  produced  for  two  hundred 
years.    Why  did  you  not  ffiv«  icune  proofs  of  your  assert 


THB  HUHPHBEY-BENNSTT  DISCUSSION. 


C7 


tlon  that  leading  Infidels  aie  ashamed  of  it?  Where  are 
the  proofs  to  be  found?  If  he  merely  played  the  parrot 
«nd  r^eated  the  ideas  of  otiiers.  ^y  have  the  anathemas 
of  the  Church  been  heaped  upoa  his  head  a  thousand  times 
more  than  upon  those  who  you  say  were  the  originators  of  his 
•entimentst  If  it  is  true  that  his  writmgs  cannot  do  any  dis- 
credit to  Christianity,  please  tell  me  why  defamation,  slan- 
der, and  abuse  have  been  so  persistently  thrown  upon  him 
toy  the  Christian  sects  for  three  quarters  of  a  century. 

Is  it  not  singular,  too,  that  the  writings  of  a  mere  plagiar- 
ist should  have  been  so  popular  while  the  originals  sank 
into  comparative  obscurity  ?  Probably  there  have  been 
more  copies  sold  of  Paine's  "Age  of  Reason"  than  of  all  the 
books  of  the  other  Infidel  writers  you  named.  One  hundred 
editions  of  the  "Age  of  Reason  "  have  doubtless  been  print- 
ed and  sold  in  England  and  America;  and  hundreds  more 
wiU  yet  be  printed  and  sold.  His  Theological  Works  are 
selling  to-day  far  more  rapidly  than  the  works  of  any  other 
Infidel  writer;  and  I  believe  this  wiU  be  the  case  for  the 
next  hundred  years.  Few  works  on  the  ChrisUaa  sid«  have 
been  equally  as  popular,  and  probably  there  has  not  been 
one  copy  sold  of  Watson's  Reply  to  the  "Age  of  Reason"  to 
len  or  twenty  sold  of  the  latter. 

Allow  me  to  say  in  this  connection  that  I  have  now  in 
press  a  fine  editioa  of  Paine's  Complete  Works,  which  will 
very  soon  be  Issued  in  one  large  volume,  including  his 
Life,  also  his  Theological  Works  and  his  Political 
Writings  by  themselves,  as  well  as  each  part  separately, 
lam  proud  to  be  the  publisher  of  the  writings  of  Thomas 
Paine,  and  deem  it  one  of  the  most  commendable  acts  of 
my  life.  I  shall  be  only  too  glad  to  furnish  a  copy  of  his 
works,  or  any  part  of  them,  to  any  person  who  wants  them. 
Paine  spoke  directly  to  the  people  and  addressed  himself 
to  their  plain  common  sense.  This  is  the  secret  of  his  sue 
cess  as  a  writer.  Jefferson  expressed  himself  thus,  regard- 
ing Paine  as  an  author:  "  No  writer  has  excelled  Paine  in 


Int 


I 


9B 


TBE  mUMPHBST-BBirNBTT  DISCUS8»ir. 


•Me  and  ftmUiarity  of  style,  in  pewpicuity  of  expressioa, 
Imppinew  of  elucidation,  and  in  simple,  nnassuming  lan- 
foage.    In  this  respeet  he  may  be  compared  with  Dr 
FrankUn." 

Stephen  Simpson  said  of  Paine:  ••Lucid  in  his  style  for- 
cible  in  his  diction,  and  happy  in  his  illustrations',  he 
threw  the  charms  of  poetry  over  the  statue  of  reason,  and 
made  converts  to  liberty  as  if  a  power  of  fascination  pre- 
sided over  his  pen." 

You  have  quoted  a  few  words  from  Theodore  Parker;  let 
me  add  a  few  more.  In  a  letter  to  a  near  friend  he  said :  '^I 
■ee  some  one  has  written  a  paper  on  Thomas  Paine,  in  the 
AOanHe  Manihlp,  which  excites  the  wrath  of  men  who  are 
not  worthy  to  stoop  down  and  untie  the  latchet  of  his  shoes 
nor  even  to  bring  them  home  from  the  shoe-black.  It 

must  not  be  denied  that  he  had  less  than  the  average  Lmount 
of  personal  selfishness  or  vanity;  his  instincts  were  humane 
•nd  elevated,  and  his  life  devoted  mainly  to  the  great  pur 
poses  of  humanity.  His  poliUcal  writings  fell  into  mf 
hands  in  early  boyhood,  and  I  still  think  they  were  of  im- 
mense  service  to  the  country.  .  .  I  think  he  did  more  to 
promote  piety  and  morality  among  men  than  a  hundred 
ministers  of  that  age  in  America.  He  did  it  by  showing 
that  religion  is  not  responsible  for  the  absurd  doctrines 
taught  in  its  name." 

Quotations  in  this  connection  from  a  few  other  clergy, 
men  may  not  be  out  of  place.  Rev.  Solomon  Southwick 
among  other  complimentary  remarks,  said:  "Had  Thomaii 
Paine  been  a  Grecian  or  a  Roman  patriot  in  olden  times, 
and  performed  the  same  public  services  as  he  did  for  this 
countj,  he  would  have  had  the  honor  of  an  apotheosis. 
The  Pantheon  would  have  been  opened  to  him,  and  we 
should  at  this  day  regard  his  memory  with  the  same  vene. 
ration  that  we  do  that  of  Socrates  and  Cicero.  But  posterity 
wiU  do  him  justice.  Time,  that  destroys  envy  and  estab- 
Ifshes  truth,  WiU  clothe  ^ig  character  in  the  habilimenu 


THB  nnMFHREY-BENK£Tr  DISCUSSION. 


69 


;hat  Justly  belong  to  it."  Rev.  M.  D.  Conway,  in  a  dis- 
sourse  in  Cincinnati  on  Paine^s  birthday,  Jan.  29,  1860 
twhich  I  had  the  good  fortune  to  hear),  said:  '*A11  efforts  to 
itain  the  good  name  of  Thomas  Paine  huve  recoiled  on 
those  who  made  them,  like  poisoned  arrows  shot  against  a 
strong  wind.  In  his  life,  in  his  justice,  in  Lis  truth,  in  his 
MUiercDce  to  high  principles,  in  his  disinterestt  dness,  I  look 
ID  vain  for  a  parallel  in  these  times."  The  Rev.  David 
Swing  of  Chicago,  and,  I  believe,  of  your  own  denomina- 
tion, said:  *'I  have  read  Paine's  theological  works  with 
preat  pleasure  and  profit.  Indeed,  judging  by  his  writings, 
be  was  one  of  the  grandest  and  best  men  that  ever  trod  the 
planet." 

In  marked  contradistinction  to  the  tributes  thus  honor- 
ably bestowed  stands  such  dishonorable  tirades  as  you 
quoted  from  the  envious  and  maligning  pen  of  Adams.  It 
seemed  to  wound  his  vanity  to  have  praise  accorded  to 
Paine.  He  could  hardly  bear  to  have  it  go  down  in  history 
that  anybody  but  himself  struggled  to  fire  the  American 
heart  to  deeds  of  daring  and  valor  in  the  cause  of  national 
independence.  I  must  confess  that  the  strongest  proof  you 
have  adduced  in  favor  of  Adams  being  a  Christian  are  the 
quotations  against  Paine  which  you  make  from  him. 
They  sound  exceedingly  like  Christian  sentiments,  and  were 
it  not  true  that  he  never  accppled  the  fundamental  dogma  of 
Christianity,  I  would  freely  relinquish  him  to  you  and  your 
cause.  That  bis  remarks  about  Paine  were  malicious,  un- 
generous and  uncalled  for,  cannot  for  a  moment  be  doubted. 

You  say,  "Paine  did  not  always  tell  the  truth," and  as 
proof  adduce  his  assertion  that  he  never  published  a  syllable 
in  England.  It  is  quite  possible  that  he  did  not.  Writing 
and  ptihliahing  arc  very  different  operations.  Many  persons 
write  for  my  paper,  but  I  am  the pubUsher^  and  equally  so  if 
I  write  not  a  word  myself.  Do  you  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  Mr.  Paine  meant  that  he  nover  torote  a  syllable  in  Eng- 
andt    It  strikes  me  that  I  can  substantiate  a  much  stronger 


i; 


m 


;i'H 
1 1  I 


I 


70 


THE  eUUFUKBT-BIKNBTT  DISOUSSIOIT. 


I 


chafge  of  falsehood  against  yoar  God,  your  Savior,  th« 
patriarchs,  the  prophets,  the  apostles,  and  the  popes,  bbh- 
ops  and  priests,  from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  present. 
Should  you  desire  it,  it  will  be  a  cheerful  task  to  me  to  ac- 
commodate you. 

Paine  did  not  claim  to  be  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  bat  only  that  his  pamphlet,  *' Common 
Sense,"  fed  to  «.  This  opinion  is  doubtless  correct,  and  is 
corroborated  by  the  judgment  of  thousands.  Your  charge 
©f  "  self-righteousness  and  self-conceit"  is  indifferently  bum- 
tained.  It  was  no  more  reprehensible  for  him  to  name  him- 
self as  author  of  *' Common  Sense"  than  for  Jefferson  to 
name  himself  as  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence. Both  were  quite  excusable.  His  statement  that  he 
had  lived  an  honest  and  useful  life  was  strictly  true,  and 
hardly  justifies  your  fling  at  his  want  of  faith  in  the  Jewish 
Bible  in  connection  therewith.  Such  as  Paine  was,  he  at- 
tained by  his  own  efforts.  He  claimed  neither  grace  nor 
virtue  on  the  merits  of  another. 

Few  of  his  friends  have  claimed  for  him  the  authorship 
of  the  "Junius  Letters,"  though  William   H.  Burr,  in 
his  volume,  *' Junius  Unmasked,"  gives  in  parallel   col- 
umns a  large  number  of  extracts  from  Junius'  and  Paine*s 
writings,  and  it  must  be  confessed  the  similarity  is  striking. 
You  say  "Paine  became  unpopular  in  Prance."  This  was 
due  more  to  the  peculiar  fitful,  mercurial  character  of  the 
French  people  than  to  any  other  cause;  though  his  praise- 
worthy defense  of  Louis  XVI,  as  has  been  shown,  made  him 
temporarily  unpopular.    You  say,  also,  that  "he  was  penuri- 
ous."    Your  estimate  of  him  differs  from  that  of  others. 
Joel  Barlow,  a  man  of  the  highest  veracity,  and  who  knew 
Paine  intimately,  said:  "He  was  one  of  the  most  benevolent 
and  disinterested  of  mankind,  endowed  with  the  clearest 
perception,  an  uncommon  show  of  original  genius,  and  the 
greatest  depth  of  thought.    .    .    He  ought  to  be  ranked 
among  the  brightest  and  undeviating  luminaries  of  the  age 


THE  HUMPHRET-BKNNETT  DIBCtJSSION. 


n 


In  wWch  he  lived.  .  .  He  was  always  charitable  to  the 
poor,  beyond  his  means,  a  sure  protector  and  friend  to  all 
Americans  in  distress  that  he  found  in  foreign  countries; 
and  he  had  frequent  occasions  to  exert  his  influence  in  pro- 
tecting them  during  the  Revolution  in  Prance."  His  sub- 
scription of  1500,  all  the  money  he  had  in  the  world,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  soldiers,  in  the  darkest  days  of  the  Revolution- 
ary War,  did  not  look  much  like  penuriou$ne»8.  He  headed 
the  list  by  which  £30,000,  or  $150,000,  was  raised,  which 
was  another  means  by  which  the  cause  was  saved.  His 
gift  of  the  copyright  of  his  works,  never  charging  a  cent  for 
the  same,  did  not  savor  of  penuriousness.  Had  he  seen  fit, 
as  many  have  done,  to  avail  himself  of  the  copyright,  a 
large  income  could  have  been  secured  to  himself.  Had  he 
been  penurious,  he  would  doubtless  have  done  so.  He  was 
frugal  but  not  penurious. 

Another  charge  you  make  is  that  "  Paine  was  a  drunkard 
in  his  latter  years."  This  is  unkind,  to  say  the  least,  and  is 
sustained  only  by  slander  and  misrepresentation.  He  lived 
at  a  time  when  almost  everybody  drank  more  or  less;  he  did 
make  use  of  spirits,  but  he  did  not  drink  to  excess,  as  many 
of  his  intimate  acquaintances  testified.  The  allowance  that 
he  restricted  himself  to  was  one  quart  per  week,  and 
this  included  what  he  placed  before  his  friends  when 
they  called  upon  him.  That  quantity  would  not  suffice  for  a 
hard  drinker.  The  amount  used  Is  proved  by  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Burger,  the  grocer  who  supplied  Mr.  Paine,  and  I  ob- 
tained additional  confirmation  from  surviving  members  of 
the  family  with  whom  he  boarded  when  at  New  Rochelle. 
Their  statement  was  that  he  never  exceeded  one  quart  per 
week,  and  that  they  never  knew  him  to  be  intoxicated.  I 
have  conversed  also  with  Major  A.  Coutant  and  Mr.  Bar- 
ker of  New  Rochelle,  now  very  far  advanced  in  life,  but  who 
distinctly  remember  Mr.  Paine.  They  remember  him  as  a 
pleasant,  genial  man,  who  lived  on  good  terms  with  his 
neighbors  and  Waa  not  known  to  ever  have  been  intoxicated. 


\ 


: 


I   . 


71 


THl  BUMPHRET'BBNNBTT  DIBCUSSION. 


\r 


If  he  even  d^  get  intoxicated  oocasionally,  It  would  hardly 
disproTe  hig  arguments,  either  upon  political  or  theological 
suhjects,  and  would  not  render  him  materially  different 
from  many  of  the  brilliant  minds  who  have  graced  our  na- 
tion's history,  among  whom  may  be  named  Daniel  Webster, 
Henry  Clay,  Thomas  P.  Marshall,  Silas  Wright,  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  Richard  Yates,  and  many  others,  not  to  name 
Chandler  and  Grant  of  our  own  times.  These  men  all  made 
pretty  free  use  of  ardent  spirits,  but  the  Church  has  not 
tried  to  damn  their  memories  on  account  of  it  The  facto 
are,  Paine  made  an  habitual  use  of  the  article,  but  he  waa 
not  a  drunkard.  Had  Paine  become  so  intoxicated  as  to  lie 
in  a  drunken  sleep,  exposing  his  person,  as  did  the  patriarch 
Noah,  or  like  the  patriarch  Lot,  to  commit  incest  with  his 
own  daughters,  or  even  like  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pearson  of  Pitts- 
burgh, or  that  other  respected  clergyman  in  Baltimore  who 
recently  was  so  intoxicated  in  the  pulpit  as  to  be  unable  to 
continue  his  sermen,  you  could  have  made  out  a  much 
stronger  case  of  intemperance  against  him  than  with  all 
the  facts  we  have  in  his  case. 

Your  charge  about  his  being  *'  unhappy  and  quarrelsome** 
is  hardly  worthy  of  attention.  In  advanced  life,  when  he  felt 
that  he  had  been  denied  the  credit  which  a  grateful  people 
should  have  bestowed  upon  him,  he  might  at  times  have  been 
peevish  and  uncommunicative,  as  many  aged  people  are; 
but  amiability,  geniality,  and  sociability  were  his  general 
characteristics. 

I  am  most  sorry  of  all,  dear  friend,  to  see  you  willing  to 
repeat  or  use  the  vile  insinuations  retailed  by  that  ungentle- 
manly  slanderer,  Cheetham,  in  regard  to  an  intimacy  be- 
tween Paine  and  Madame  Bonneville,  throwing  out  the 
imputation  that  he  was  the  father  of  one  of  her  children, 
when  there  was  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  there  was  the 
slightest  truth  in  the  insinuation,  and  when  you  must  have 
known  that  Mrs.  Bonneville  prosecuted  Cheetham  for  libel, 
and  sustained  the  actton  without  the  slightest  difficolty,  and 


; 


THB  HUMFHRBT-BBimBTT  DISCUSSION. 


73 


that  Cheetham's  gentlemanly  lawyer,    acknowledged    in 
court  that  the  charge  was  groundless— an  unmitigated  libel. 
I  can  hardly  think  your  cause  can  be  benefited  by  repeat- 
ing those  calumnies  and  low  insinuations.    In  view  of  the 
notorious  adulterous  operations  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  Rev. 
Mr.  Wesley,  of  Illinois,  Rev.  J.  S.  Bartlett,  Rev.  Miriam  D. 
Wood,  Rev.  J.  M.  Mitchells  Rev.  L.  D.  Huston,  Rev.  A.  T. 
Thompson,  Rev.  B.  F.  Berkley,  Rev.  Dr.  Griswold,  Rev.  E. 
G.  Ribble,  Rev.  B.  Phinney,  Rev.  I.  S.  Kalloch,  Rev.  Dr. 
Pomeroy,  Rev.  Tunis  Titus  Kendrick,  Rev.  R.  H.  William- 
son, Rev.  John  Newland  Maffit,  Rev.  Mr.  Wilcox,  Rev.  B. 
W.  Sehon,  Rev.  John  A.  Huckins,  Rev.  Mr.  Deardorf ,  with 
hundreds  of  other  libidinous  reverends,  from  Henry  W. 
Beecher.  down  to  the  Rev.  Thomas  B.  Bott  and  the  Rev. 
J.  H.  Foster,  against  all  of  whom  most  damaging  proofs  of 
adulterous  criminalities  were  brought  to  light,  it  seems 
hardly  worth  your  while  to  revive  the  false  and  exploded 
insinuation  about  Paine,  whose  record  in  that  direction  is 
singularly  clear  and  untarnished.  Occupants  of  glass  houses 
or  people  whose  friends  are,  should  not  amuse  themselves 

by  throwing  stones. 

Mr.  Paine  never  set  himself  up  for  a  saint,  nor  have  his 
greatest  admirers  ever  claimed  that  he  was  a  man  without 
fault.  He  was  human,  and  of  course  had  his  failings  as  well 
as  other  men;  but  take  him  "all  in  all,"  through  the 
entire  course  of  his  life,  and  he  will  compare  favorably 
with  distinguished  statesmen,  theologians,  and  authors  of 
the  last  two  centuries.  When,  however,  sectarians  have 
been  unable  to  refute  his  arguments  (and  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  his  theological  arguments  have  never  been  refuted), 
their  only  recourse  nas  oeeu  to  slander,  abuse,  and  call  him 
hard  names.  Tney  have  seemed  to  think  if  they  charged 
Paine  with  intemperance,  uncleanliness,  sadness,  and  with 
having  recanted  on  his  death-bed,  that  they  had  set  his 
arguments  aside.  It  is  not  strange,  then,  finding  this  course 
so  much  easier  than  refuting  his  argumento,  that  they, 


I  I 


M 


I 


94 


THE  HUMPHBSY-BBNNBTT  DI»CUfl8I0N. 


* 


fihould  readily  resort  to  it  As  you  are  candid  cnougli  t« 
adfult  thaA  "he  died  as  he  lived,  a  Deist,"  it  is  uimeces- 
eary  for  me  to  disprove  tlie  oft-repeated  and  silly  assertions 
tiiat  he  recanted  on  his  death-bed  and  £ave  the  lie  to  tho 
honest  convictioas  of  his  life. 

In  conclusion,  allow  me  to  make  one  more  brief  quotatioa 
from  the  matchless  Ingersoll:  **I  challenge  the  world  to 
•how  that  Thomas  Paine  «ver  wrote  one  line,  one  word,  in 
favor  of  tyranny— in  favor  of  Immorality;  one  line,  one 
word,  against  what  he  believed  to  be  for  the  highest  aad 
best  interest  of  mankind;  one  line,  one  word,  against  jus- 
tice, charity,  or  liberty,  and  yet  he  has  been  pursued  at 
though  he  had  been  a  fiend  from  hell.  His  memory  has  been 
execrated  as  though  he  had  murdered  some  Uriah  for  hii 
wife,  driven  some  Hagar  into  the  desert  to  starve  with  hia 
4shUd  upon  her  bosom;  defiled  his  own  daughters;  ripped 
open  with  the  sword  the  sweet  bodies  of  loving  and  inno- 
cent women;  advised  one  brother  to  assassinate  another: 
kept  a  harem  with  seven  hundred  wives  and  three  hundred 
concubines,  or  had  persecuted  Christians  even  unto  strange 
cities.** 

The  fact  that  it  re<|tdffes  nore  space  to  refute  false 
charges  than  to  make  them  must  be  my  apology  for  the 
length  of  my  reply. 

I  am  truly  yours,  D.  M.  BsNinETT. 


MR.     HUMPHRBT* 

Mb.  D.  M.  Bbnnett,  Jkar  Sir:  Tou  said  in  your  first 
letter  that  **  England  had  no  deadlier  foe  to  American  free- 
dom than  was  John  Wesley."  That,  I  think,  is  an  incor- 
rect statement.  Like  a  great  many  other  Englishmen,  of 
every  species  of  belief  and  unbelief,  Wesley  thought  the 
British  the  best  form  of  government  in  the  world;  and  he 
regretted  to  see  a  disruption  between  the  Colonies  and  the 


I 


HUMTHREY-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION.  *0 

Kother  country.   But  he  was  not  a  "deadly  foe  to  American 
freedom.'*    He  pronounced  the  slave  trade  "  that  execrable 
sum  of  all  villainies"  (Works:  London,  1810;  vol.  v,  p.  47). 
He  wrote,  and  spoke  in  defense  of  religious  toleration  and 
freedom  of  conscience  (vol.  vi,  p.  237,  401).    He  and  his 
friend  Gen.  Oglethorpe  endeavored  to  make  Georgia  a  free 
State  (Greeley's  American  Conflict,  vol.  i,  p.  82).    In  a  let- 
ter to  Lord  North,  dated  June  15, 1775,  after  receiving  ful- 
ler information  than  he  at  first  possessed  about  the  true  state 
of  affairs,  he  said  respecting  the  Colonists:  "  In  spite  of  all 
my  long-rooted  prejudices,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  If  I  think 
at  all,  these,  an  oppressed  people,  asked  for  nothing  more 
than  their  legal   rights,  and   that   in   the   most   modest 
and   inoflfensive   manner   that   the   nature   of   the   thing 
would  aUow.    But  waiving  this,  waiving  all  considerations 
of  right  and  wrong,  I  ask,  is  it  common  sense  to  use  force 
toward  the  Americans  ?    .    .    They  are  as  strong  men  as 
you;  they  are  as  valiant  as  you.  if  not  abundantly  more  val. 
lant,*  for  they  are  one,  and  all  enthusiasts—enthusiasts  for 
liberty**  (Parton*s  Life  or  Franklin,  vol.  i,  p.  548).    Does 
this  look  like  deadly  enmity  to  American  freedom? 

Ton  promised  to  show  that  James  Madison  was  an  Infidel  l 
I  wonder  more  at  the  promise  than  at  the  non-fulfillment. 
Madison  was  a  thorough  believer  in  the  Christian  religion. 
When  he  died,  '*he  had  fulfilled,  nobly  fulfilled,  the  desti- 
nies of  a  man  and  a  Christian  **  (J.  Q.  Adams*   Eulogy, 

p.  4) 
So  of  Gouverneur  Morris.    You  will  hardly  attempt  to 

prove  that  he  was  a  Deist  after  seeing  his  uncomplimentary 

estimate  of  Paine. 

In  your  third  letter  you  quote  from  Franklin's  Autobiogra- 
phy to  prove  that  he  was  a  Deist.  Franklin  was  referring 
to  himself  when  fifteen,  where  he  said,  "I  became  a  thor- 
ough  Deist.*'  We  have  already  shown  that  he  passed 
through  a  "  regeneration,"  and  "  returned  to  the  sentimenU 
of  his  ancestors  "  after  that    Your  quotation  Is  Uke  citing 


n\ 


Ttt 


THB  nUMPHRBT-BBNNETT   DlSCUStlON. 


what  a  man  has  said  when  tipsy,  in  order  to  show  how 
much  sense  he  has  when  sober. 

Ton  make  a  special  effort  to  convince  the  reader  that  Jef- 
ferson was  an  Infidel.    Many  of  your  quotations  only  8how 
Jefferson's  views  concerning  the  **  corruptions  and  abuses 
of  Christianiiy."    Tou  can  find  similar  things  in  sermons, 
and,  for  that  matter,  in  the  New  Testament.    He  advised 
Peter  Carr  to  take  nothing  for  granted— to  doubt  everything. 
Perhaps  you  are  not  aware  that  a  course  in  a  modern  theo- 
logical seminary  is  based  on  a  similar  principle.    The  stu- 
dent is  not  taught  to  assume  but  to  prove  the  existence  of  a 
God.    Descartes  began  with  universal  doubt.    He  *'  ques- 
tioned with  boldness  even  the  existence  of  a  (^od.**    But 
was  Descartes  therefore  an  Infidel?    No;  he  *' lived  and 
died  a  good  Catholic"  (Huxley*s  Lay  Sermons,  p.  842). 
In  the  inculcation  of  this  principle,  then,  Jefferson  did  not 
differ  from  Christian  philosophers  and  theologians. 

But  Jefferson  called  himself  a  "  Materialist."  Yes ;  and  he 
called  himself  a  ** Christian"  also.  Now,  these  two  state- 
ments cannot  be  reconciled  in  your  favor;  but  they  can  in 
mine.  Jefferson  could  not  be  a  **  Christian**  in  any  sense 
and  be  a  ** Materialist''  in  the  Atheistic  sense.  But  he 
emld  be  a  Christian  consistently  with  Webster's  second  defi- 
nition of  the  word  MaieriaUim :  '*  The  tendency  to  give  un- 
due importance  to  material  interests;  devotion  to  the  ma- 
terial nature  and  its  wanta"  His  writings  prove  abun- 
dantly that  he  was  not  a  *'  Materialist"  in  the  sense  of  "one 
who  denies  the  existence  of  spiritual  substances.'*  It  follows 
that  Jefferson  flatly  contradicted  himself,  or  else  he  used  the 
word  *' Materialist"  in  a  sense  consistent  with  a  belief  in 
the  Scriptures. 

And  he  called  Paul  a  "  Cor3rphaens."    That  ua»  rather  a 
hard  name  to  give  the  great  Apostle.    But  you  must  know  * 
that  avowed  Christians  sometimes  give  vent  to  unguarded 
expressions  of  this  kind.  Borne  women  that  want  to  preach, 
when  reminded  of  certaiii  Uyunctioni  to  *'iUence  in  tlift 


THE  HUMPHBET-BBNNKTT  DISCUSSION. 


77 


churches,"  speak  of  Paul  rather  lightly  as  an  "old  bachelor.** 
Martin  Luther  called  James*  Epistle  "  an  Epistle  of  straw,*' 
and  he  did  it  with  considerable  earnestness,  too.  But  you 
will  hardly  claim  that  Luther  was  an  Infidel.  Then  why  be 
so  mre  that  Jefferson  was,  since  he  did  not  speak  more  dis- 
respectfully of  Paul  than  Luther  did  of  James  f 

If  Jefferson  was  an  Infidel  why  did  he  call  the  imputation 
of  Infidelity  a  "libel,**  a  "malignant  distortion  and  perverted 
construction'*?  If  he  was  an  Infidel  of  the  Paine  type,  how 
was  it  that  he  did  not  allude,  disciple-like,  to  Paine  in  one 
of  the  twenty-five  private  letters  that  he  wrote  between  the 
time  of  Paine's  death  in  June  and  the  close  of  the  year?  If 
he  was  an  Infidel,  how  could  Samuel  Adams  write  to 
Thomas  Paine,  in  1802,  such  words  as  these:  "  Our  friend, 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  has  been  calumniated 
for  his  liberal  sentiments,  by  men  who  have  attributed  that 
liberality  to  a  latent  design  to  promote  the  cause  of  Infidel- 
ity. This  and  all  other  danders  have  been  made  without  a  shad- 
O'O  of  proof ;*^  and  why  did  Paine  not  claim  him  in  his  reply  f 
If  he  was  an  Infidel,  why  did  he  always  deny  it,  and  claim 
that  he  was  a  Christian  t  When  will  poor  Jefferson  cease 
to  be  the  subject  of  "libels,"  "slanders,"  "calumnies," 
"  malignant  distortion  and  perverted  construction  **? 

You  devote  a  considerable  part  of  your  letter  in  defense 
of  Paine  to  showing  whst  I  had  already  acknowledged.  I 
must  give  you  credit  for  candor  in  not  denying  that 
Paine  labored  for  American  Independence  by  assuming  to 
be  a  believer  in  the  Bible,  and  by  appealing  to  Christian  sen- 
timents with  Christian  arguments.  What  I  meant  by  the 
"period  of  Paine*s  infamy,"  was  the  period  in  which  he  be- 
came infamous.  You  refer  rather  contemptuously  to  Mad- 
ame Roland  as  "  a  woman.'*  I  gave  her  opinion  simply  be- 
cause  she  was  a  skeptic,  esteemed  very  highly  among  In- 
fidels. The  whole  American  people  expressed  the  same 
opinion  that  she  did  by  not  electing  Paine  to  any  position 
II  here  statesmanship  would  be  required.    You  try  in  vain 


1 
i 


M' 


i, 


I 


78 


THS  HUMPHBETBSNNSTT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  HUlfPHBET  -  BSHKBTT  mSCITSSiaN. 


19 


to  defend  him  against  the  charge  of  falsifying.  Your  dis- 
tinction between  writing  and  publishing  seems  to  me  Yerj 
much  like  a  quibble.  John  Adams  said  in  regard  to  this 
matter:  "He  was  extremely  earnest  to  conyince  me  that 
'Common  Sense*  was  his  first-born;  declared  again  and 
again  that  he  had  never  tmttm  a  line  nor  a  word  that  had 
been  printed  before  *  Ck)mmon  Sense' "  (Works,  vol.  ii, 
p.  510).  In  regard  to  Paine  and  that  French  woman,  Mrs. 
Bonneville,  I  only  gKvefaett  which  no  one  denies.  Let  every 
one  draw  his  own  inference.  Tou  say  truly  that  when 
Cheetham  was  prosecuted  for  libel  he  failed  to  prove  his  in- 
sinuations.  Very  well;  but  do  Infidels  drop  their  insinua- 
tions against  professing  Christians  when  similar  charges 
are  made  against  ihmn^  and  fail  of  proof  in  a  criminal  coortf 
The  first  instance  is  yet  to  be  produced. 

Permit  me  to  say  a  word  about  the  incorporation  of  relig* 
ious  freedom  in  the  Constitution.  That  was  not  the  work 
of  Infidels,  but  the  achievement  of  believers  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  On  this  subject  Judge  Story  lays:  "  Wo  ar« 
not  to  attribute  this  prohibition  of  a  national  religious  estab* 
lishment  to  any  indifference  to  religion  xxi  gonerol,  and 
especially  to  Christianity  (which  none  could  hold  in  more  rev* 
erenee  than  (heframers  of  the  Constitution),  but  to  a  dread  by 
the  people  of  the  influence  of  ecclesiastical  power  in  mat- 
ters of  government."  "Probably,  at  the  time  of  the  adop- 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  and  of  the  amendment  to  it,  now 
under  consideration,  the  general,  if  not  the  universal,  sentk 
ment  in  America  was,  that  Christianity  ought  to  receive 
encouragement  from  the  State,  so  far  as  such  encouragement 
was  not  incompatible  with  the  private  rights  of  conscience, 
and  the  freedom  of  religious  worship.  Any  attempt  to 
level  all  religions,  and  to  make  it  a  matter  of  State  policy 
to  hold  all  in  utter  indifference,  would  have  created  univer- 
sal disapprobation,  if  not  universal  indignation**  (Exposition 
of  the  Constitution,  New  York,  1868,  pp.  25»-261). 
-  li  would  be  i«levant  to  oiur  subject  to  show  that  belie veit 


in  the  Bible  have  done  much  more  than  unbelievers  to  bring 
about  the  abolition  of  American  Slavery.  But  time  and 
space  compel  me  to  confine  what  I  have  to  say  on  that  mat- 
ter to  a  mere  outline: — 

1.  Slavery  is  older  than  the  Bible;  therefore  the  Scrip- 
tures did  not  create  nor  establish  that  institution. 

2.  Slavery  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  was  much  milder 
than  among  the  surrounding  nations.  The  Mosaic  law  pro- 
vided a  periodical  emancipation  of  all  bondmen.  The 
whole  regime  was  virtually  a  scheme  for  the  gradual  aboli- 
tion of  slavery,  similar  to  that  which  the  French  Infidel 
Condorcet  recommended. 

8.  The  cardinal  principles  of  the  Scripturef  involve  a 
condemnation  of  Slavery.  Christ  so  expounded  them:  "All 
things  whatsover  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do 
ye  even  so  to  them :  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets  "  (Mat 
vii,  12).  As  far  back  as  the  age  of  Isaiah,  we  find  among 
the  Jews  such  sentiments  as  the  following:  "  Is  not  this  the 
fast  that  I  have  chosen?  to  loose  the  bands  of  wickedness, 
to  undo  the  heavy  burdens,  and  to  let  the  oppressed  go  free, 
and  that  ye  break  every  yoke?"  (Isa.  Iviii,  6). 

4  It  is  true,  however,  that  many  professing  Christians 
have  sanctioned  slavery;  and  the  Bible  has  been  pressed 
into  the  service  of  the  slave-holder.  But  the  remedy  for 
these  evils  in  the  Church  has  always  arisen  from  within 
herself.  The  voice  that  has  taught  and  corrected  her  mem- 
bers has  emanated  from  her  own  altars.  The  Christian  has 
always  been  the  best  friend  of  the  oppressed.  I  need  not 
remind  you  of  Wilberforce,  the  leading  Abolitionist  of  Eng- 
land. In  our  own  country,  the  movement  which  culminated 
in  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  was  in  the  main  a  move- 
ment of  religious  people.  Henry  Wilson  says  on  this  sub- 
ject: **It  has  been  fashionable  to  couple  the  charge  of  Infi- 
delity with  the  mention  of  the  Abolition  effort.  Nothing 
could  be  more  unjust  or  untrue.  Anti-slavery  was  the  child 
of  Christian  faith.    Its  early  and  persistent  defenders  and 


If  - 


5-" 


it..« 


rt 


''■v.. 


THB  nUMPHRET  -  BEKHKTT  DISCUSSION. 

mppvrTcrs  were  men  who  feared  God  and  called  upon  hit 
ntimc  '*  (Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  vol. 
lii,  p.  718).  In  this  magnificent  work  he  shows  that  John 
Eliot,  Judge  Sewall,  Burliog,  Sanlford,  Lay,  Woolman,Ben- 
tzet,  Wesley,  Whitfield,  Rush,  &c..  Ac,  opposed  slavery 
(vol.  i,  ch.  1.);  that  the  earliest  Abolition  Societies  were 
** loyal  to  the  precepts  of  Christianity";  that  Rev.  Dan'l 
Worth  suffered  imprisonment  for  circulating  anti-slavery 
literature  (vol.  ii,  p.  668);  that  **  the  great  body  of  the  Prot- 
estant clergy  condemned  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law"  (vol.  il,  p. 
8ia);  that  the  **  Underground  Railroad '*  was  the  coopera- 
tion. "gencraUy,  though  not  exclusively,  of  members  of 
Christian  churches"  (vol.  ii,  p.  66).  But.  perhaps  you  do 
not  like  Henry  Wilson,  because  he  was  such  a  thorough- 
going Christian.  Take  a  more  "  liberal "  man,  then— a  man 
that  could  too  frequently  **  swear  like  a  trooper."  I  mean 
Horace  Greeley.  In  the  first  volume  of  his  "American 
Conflict"— dedicated  to  the  "Christian  Statesman,"  John 
Bright— he  shows  that  Jonathan  Edwards,  Jr.,  preached 
against  Slavery  in  1791  (p.  60);  that  John  Wesley,  Ogle- 
thorpe, Washington  and  Jefferson  opposed  slavery  (pp.  82, 
84t  51);  that  the  devout  John  Jay  was  the  first  President  of 
the  New  York  Manumission  Society  (p.  107);  that  Franklin 
was  President  and  Rush  Secretary  of  a  similar  Society  in 
Pennsylvania  (p.  107);  that  the  "pioneers  of  modern  Abo- 
litionism were  almost  uniformly  devout,  pious,  church-nur- 
tured men"  (p.  121);  and  that  the  fint  manyrt  of  Abolition- 
ism—Rev. Elijah  P.  Lovejoy  and  John  Brown— were  fer- 
vent Christians  (pp.  141,  206-7). 

It  is  clear  from  all  this  that  the  earliest,  most  earnest,  per- 
sistent, and  numeroui  friends  of  the  slave  were  found  In  the 
Church,  and  not  among  Infidels.  In  the  campaign  of  1860 
when  Slavery  and  Liberty  were  fighting  their  last  desperate 
battle  at  the  polls,  where  was  "the  matchless  Ingersoll" 
that  has  been  prating  so  much  of  late  about  the  "  liberty 
of  man,  woman,  and  child"?    Ot  coiirse*  he  was  among  Um 


ISB  muffnniEY-BBNSETT  DISCT8SION. 


IM 


1 


i 


™lere  all  burned  off.  and  thea  came  forward .Uha 
big  brass  pan  to  claim  the  honey. 

1  hag  been  claimed  that  Lincoln  was  an  Infidel.    Having 

J;  the^rHon  that  Colfax  said  so  in  his  lecture.  I  wrote 

!,    rtrr  Colfax  to  ask  whether  that  was  true  or  not. 

rSed- 1  d  i  "«  »y  in  »y  Wncom  l^ur.  that  Mr 

^1^H\.  not  a  belierer  in  the  Christian  religion  but 

Wered  iul«60  Mr.  Lincoln  said:  "'^^o^^*'^^^'^'''^, 
'Ze  1  Unbw  that  Liberty  is  right,  for  CJn^^-^-t.  "n. 
CAm.  *  Qoa'>  (Arnold's  Life  of  Liwsoln.  p.  «88^  ^Ixen^eaT 
ing  SpriDgaeld  to  assume  the  Presidency  he  said:    He  (Wash 
inLn)  never  would  have  succeeded  except  for  the  «d  of 
»S.„e  Providence,  upon  which  »»  »' '^"-- f  "^  J 
"1'  that  I  cannot  succeed  without  the  *««»«  0''"f  ^ 
:;  which  sustained  him;  and  on  t^^^/-*  ^^^^^^f"" 
I  Place  my  reliance  for  wpport.    And  I  hope  you.  my 
Lenl  Ta  «fl  1^  that  I  may  receive  that  dmne  assist- 
IL  witllth^I  cannot  succeed,  but  wiOj  which  .uc- 
Z  I  certaiu-dbid.  p.  «»).    ^  Ms  first  Inaug^ra^  h. 
Ld.  .' Intelligence,  patriotism.  €hi»liantts,  «.dafcm  re- 
tL  on  Him  who  has  never  yet  foisaken  !>»  ^o-^  "^^ 
»re  still  competent  to  adjust  in  the  best  way  all  our  present 

::;::;."  'm.  --- -^i'^- jr^rrt 

rthc'yrr^iir^^^^^^^^^^^      ---: 

ever  to  L  and  act  in  the  consciousness  of  his  responsibility 
to  God  and  with  the  trusting  faith  of  a  child  be  leaned 
ionfldi^gly  upon  his  Almighty  Arm."  "The  -ppo* 
which  lb.  i-incoto  received  during  hia  admu.istr.aon  f «« 


81 


THE  HUMPnRET-BENNETT  DtSCtHSSIOm 


THE  nUHPnilEY-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


88 


^P'" 


■J 


§ 


the  relrgioHs  orgraniaationg,  and  the  sjmpathy  and  cod©- 
dcnce  between  the  great  body  of  Christians  and  the  Presj- 
dent,  was  a  source  of  immense  strength  and  power  to  him** 
(Ibid,  p.  688>.     "This  great  family.  wUh  a  continent  for  » 
homestead,  universal  liberty,  restrained  and  guided  by  in- 
telligence and  Chn$timitff,  was  his  sublime  ideal  of  the 
future.    For  this  he  liYed,  and  for  this  he  died"  (Ibid,  p, 
690).    Raymond  endorses  a  similar  testimony  concerning 
Ws  "religions  ejiperience"  ^ife  and  Public  Services  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  X.  Y.,  1865.  pp.  730-6X 

In  apposition  to  such  authorities  as^  these  what  is  the  value 
of  a  "they  say  so,«  or  an  "it  is  said"?  Simply  nothing, 
limcoln  was  indisputably  a  profound  believer  in  the  Chris- 
tian Religion. 

I  now  close  my  dacussion  of  the  first  proposition,  i 
have  endeavored  to  show  that  "believers  in 'the  Bible 
have  done  more  for  civil  liberty  in  the  United  Sutes  than 
nnbeHevers  in  it  "-moie  for  Independence  ^  more  for 
Religious  Pieedom  in  the  Conetitutiott;  and  more  for  the 
Abolition  of  Slavery  from  Americaa  teiL 

Yours  with  respect,  G.  a  Humphbkt* 


KR.    BKVITBTT. 

Ret.  G.  H.  Humphrey,  Btmr  Sir:  Upon  the  principle 
that. "  scatteriDg  shot  kiH  the  most  game."  your  last  letter 
should  have  brought  down  a  beg-liill,  for  your  gwi  scattered 
widely. 

You  think  me  incorrect  in  the  assertion  thet  England  had 
no  deadlier  fee  to  American  freedom  than  John  Wesley. 
If  you  will  cOBfolt  the  Life  end  Times  of  John  Wesley,  A. 
H.,  by  Rev.  L.  Tyerman.  vol.  iii.  pp.  185-195,  London  'edi- 
tion, you  wm  find  that  I  had  sufficient  grounds  for  making 
the  assertion.  You  will  see  that  while  the  Colonists  were 
•tthiaisfiive  to  the  rale  of  Greet  Bciteie,  end  weie  wUliag  to 


w 


abide  bylaws  the  enaction  of  which  they  had  no  hand  in, 
and  were  willing  to  be  taxed  to  sustain  them,  Wesley  was  a 
friend  to  the  Colonists.    But  when  they  presumed  to  resist 
the  principle  of  taxation  without  representation,  none  were 
more  zealous  in  opposing  their  movement  than  the  great 
apostle  of  Methodism.    He  early  took  ground  against  their 
efforts  in  opposition  to  being  taxed  without  their  consent. 
He  preached,  in  1776,  powerful  sermons  against  the  resist- 
ance the  Colonists  were  making.     The  Rev.  Tyerman  thus 
writes:  "  Both  England  and  America  were  terribly  excited; 
but  space  prevents  our  entering  into  details.    Suffice  it  to 
say  that  the  alleged  grievance  of  the  American  Colonists 
was  their  being  taxed  without  their  consent  by  the  Eng- 
lish Parliament.     Dr.  Johnson  was  known  to  be  a  great 
hater  as  well  as  a  great  genius.     *  Sir,*  said  he,  concerning 
the  miscellaneous  and  mongrel  Colonists  across  the  Atlantic, 
'  Sir,  they  are  a  race  of  convicts  and  ought  to  be  thankful 
for  anything  ve  allow  them  short  of  hangingl*    No  wonder 
that  the  English  government,  already  at  their  wits*  end.  ap- 
plied to  Johnson  to  assist  them  with  his  powerful  pen.    He 
did  so  by  the  publication,  in  1775,  of  his  famous  pamphlet, 
•Taxation  no  Tyranny,  an  answer  to  the  Resolutions  of 
the  American  Congress.*  No  sooner  was  it  issued  than,  with 
or  without  leave,  Wesley  abridged  it,  and,  without  the  least 
reference  to  its  origin,  published  it  as  his  own,  in  a  quarto 
sheet  of  four  pages,  with  the  title,  *A  calm  Address  to  Our 
American    Colonists,    by  the    Rev.  John  Wesley,  A.  M. 
Price  one  penny.'  ** 

Thus  we  have  the  best  of  evidence  that  Wesley  endorsed 
and  fathered  the  bitter  arguments  and  invectives  against 
the  Colonists  of  the  man  who  said  :  "They  are  a  race  of 
convicts,  and  ought  to  be  thankful  for  anything  we  allow 
them  short  of  hangingl'*  His  little  abridgment  of  Johnson, 
at  one  penny,  of  course  had  a  wide  circulation.  Wesh»,y  had 
then  arrived  at  the  age  of  seventy-two,  and,  through  his  con- 
tinuous preaching  and  writing,  wielded  e  great  influence. 


-  \ 


(',. 


fs 


THE  humphhey-bennett  discussion. 


85 


TUB  BtTMFHRET-BBKNSTr  DISCUSSlOlf. 


I< 


Tbero  were  few  men  in  England  who  were  more  coospica- 
ous  or  had  more  influence,  so  that  what  he  published  against 
the  American  cause  was  quite  as  effective  as  the  labors  of 
any  man  in  England. 

There  was  a  warm  friendship  between  Johnson  and  Wes- 
ley, and  the  former  was  evidently  pleased  that  the  latter  had 
BO  emphatically  endorsed  what  he  had  written  against  the 
Colonists.  In  a  letter  to  Wesley,  Feb.  6,  1776,  Johnson 
wrote:  '^Ihave  thanks  to  return  for  the  addition  of  your 
important  suffrage  to  my  argument  on  the  American  ques- 
tion. To  have  gained  such  a  mind  as  yours  may  justly 
confirm  me  in  my  opinion. "  Wesley's  course  was  regretted  by 
the  warm  friends  of  the  Colonists,  and  many  opposed  the 
position  be  occupied,  and  several  pamphlets  were  published 
mercilessly  combatting  him.  For  further  confirmation 
on  this  point  I  will  refer  you  to  the  British  and  American 
Cyclopedias.  I  will  not  take  room  for  further  quotations, 
having,  I  think,  produced  sufficient  proof  to  show  you  that 
at  the  very  time  that  Thomas  Paine,  the  Infidel,  was  using 
his  entire  efforts  to  rouse  the  Colonists  to  the  importance  of 
resisting  the  oppressions  of  the  British  Government,  John 
Wesley,  the  Christian  par  exeeUenee,  was  using  his  great 
ability  and  influence  to  aid  their  oppressors. 

Tou  seem  not  altogether  pleased  with  my  showing  of 
Jefferson's  Christianity  or  his  Infidelity,  whichever  it  may 
be  regarded.  I  am  sorry  for  this,  as  I  wish  to  have  his 
case  clearly  understood.  I  showed  that  he  advised  his 
nephew  and  ward  to  **  fix  reason  firmly  on  her  throne,"  to 
"question  boldly  the  existence  of  Ood,"  to  read  the  Bible  as  he 
would  Livy  or  Tacitus,  to  believe  nothing  in  it  without  au« 
thority  more  than  other  books.  He  cast  discredit  upon  such 
atalements  in  the  Bible  as  disagree  with  the  laws  of  nature, 
like  Joshua's  causing  the  sun  and  moon  to  stand  still,  Jesus 
being  bom  of  a  virgin,  etc.  I  showed  that  the  leading  Pres- 
byterian paper  of  the  country,  Sidney  E.  Morse,  editor,  de- 
clared Jefferson  unfriendly  to  c^thodox  religion,  a  disbe* 


\ 


I 


Meverin  Divine  Kevelation.  and  a  "scoffer  of  the  very  lowest 
class,"  a  "Materialist  and  a  Humanitarian  of  the  lowest  kind." 
I  quoted  Jefferson's  own  letters  in  which  he  characterized 
the  Trinity  as  a  hocus-pocus  phantasm  of  a  God,  like  anoth- 
er Cerberus,  with  one  body  and  three  heads;  that  he  wrote 
to  Adams,  **The  day  will  come  when  the  mystical  genera- 
tion of  Jesus,  by  the  Supreme  Being  as  his  father,  will  be 
classed  with  the  generation  of  Minerva  in  the  brain  of  Ju- 
piter."   I  showed  that  he  spoke  freely  of  the  stupidity  of 
some  of  the  Evangelists  and  early  disciples,  and  of  the 
roguery  of  others;  that  he  said,  "Of  this  band  of  dupes  and 
impostors  Paul  was  the  great  Coryphaeus  and  first  corrupt- 
er of  the  doctrines  of  Jesus;"  that  he  pronounced  himself  a 
"MtUerialist.**    I  showed  that  he  denounced  the  clergy  of 
Europe  and  America,  and  pronounced  them  an  injury  to  the 
people;  that  he  spoke  very  disparagingly  of  revivals,  prayer- 
meetings,  etc. ;  that  he  approved  of  much  of  D'Holbach's 
Atheistical  writings;  that  he  wrote  to  Col.  Pickering  about 
"the  incomprehensible  jargon  of  the  Trinitarian  arithmetic, 
that  three  are  one  and  one  is  three." 

I  gave  you  much  more  that  he  said  and  wrote,  and  still 
you  are  not  satisfied  —  still  you  insist  that  he  was  a 
Christian,  and  that  on  one  occasion  he  called  himself  one. 
If  he  did  so  I  think  it  must  have  been  in  a  very  Pickwickian 
sense,  for  few  men  have  more  strongly  expressed  themselves 
as  unbelievers  in  the  divinity  of  the  Bible  and  the  Christian 

religion. 

You  allude  to  my  mention  of  the  fact  of  Franklin  statmg 
in  his  autobiography  that  he  "became  a  thorough  Deist," 
and  wish  to  counteract  the  effect  of  it  because  the  time  he 
alluded  to  was  when  he  was  young,  but  you  f  aUed  to  show 
where  he  stated  that  he  had  ceased  to  be  a  Deist.  He  was 
somewhat  offended  when  Whitefleld  spoke  as  though  there 
was  little  difference  between  an  Atheist  and  a  Deist;  Frank- 
lin had  a  distinct  idea  of  a  difference.  He  denied  being  an 
Atheist  but  never  denied  being  a  Deist.    You  will  remem- 


.  i 


88 


TB£  HnMPORST-BSNirXTT  DUCUBSKHV. 


ber  that  Dr.  Priestley,  who  knew  Franklin  intimately,  re- 
gretted that  he  was  a  Deist  When  Franklin  had  arrived  at 
the  great  age  of  eighty-five  he  acknowledged  that  he  still  en- 
tertained doubts  of  the  diylnity  of  Jesus.  I  wish  you  would 
show  where  he  ever  gave  any  acknowledgment  that  he  be- 
lieved that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  God  or  was  God  himself. 

As  to  Washington.  I  showed  by  Jefferson  and  Gouver- 
neur  Morris  that  he  was  an  unbeliever  in  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, that  he  never  wrote  or  spoke  a  word  in  a  public  or 
private  capacity  that  committed  himself  to  it,  and  I  showed 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Abercrombie  that  the  General  was  a  Deist. 
I  showed  Aaron  Burr  to  be  of  the  same  belief,  that  even  at 
the  hour  of  death  he  could  not  be  induced  to  admit  that  ho 
believed  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  John  Adams.  Although  he  was 
envious  of  Paine,  and  said  unkind  and  untrue  things  of 
him,  he  did  not  accept  the  leading  Christian  dogma,  and 
in  this  respect  sympathized  closely  with  Jefferson. 

You  do  not  quote  me  correctly  when  you  say  I  promised 
to  show  **  James  Madison  was  an  Infidel."  I  only  said  X 
would  probably  have  more  to  say  of  him.  He  is  not  a  cen- 
tral figure,  and  I  have  i^ven  but  little  attention  to  him.  I 
think  information  is  rather  meagre  touching  his  religious 
views.  His  biographers  have  been  rather  non-committal 
upon  the  subject.  In  the  "American  Cyclopedia"  the 
statement  is  made  that  in  early  life  '*  his  attention  was  par- 
ticularly directed  to  the  evidences  of  the  Christian  religion, 
but  no  account  is  given  of  his  having  embraced  it  at  any 
time  of  his  life.  Jefferson  thus  wrote  respecting  Madison: 
'*From  three  and  thirty  years*  trial  I  can  say  conscien- 
tiously that  I  do  not  know  In  the  world  a  man  of  purer  in- 
tegrity, more  dispassionate,  disinterested  and  devoted  to 
pure  republicanism,  nor  could  I  in  the  whole  scope  of 
America  and  Europe  point  out  an  abler  head."  But  in  this 
not  a  word  about  his  "  standing  up  for  Jesus."  Jefferson 
and  Madison  were  particular  friends,  and  entertained  many 


iraiB  HUMTHREY-BBNNETT  BISCUSSION. 


«7 


^lews  and  opinions  in  common.  If  Madison  was  a  Ckris- 
ZZbewJin  all  probabiUty  a  ChrisUan  of  the  Jefferson 
school.  The  phrase  you  quote  from  the  eulogy  of  J.  Q. 
Adams  about  his  being  a  man  and  a  Christian  am.un^  ^ 
^ery  litUe.  In  one  sense  every  man  in  the  U^ted  States 
27y  be  called  a  "  Christian."  as  this  is  a  boasted  ChnsUaa 

^*?f  Gouverneur  Morris,  the  data  respecting  his  reUgious 
views  are  meagre.    We  know  this  much  that  he  and^^^^ 
«on  were   intimate  and  cordial  friends.     Jefferson  thus 
wrote  of   Morris    in   connection  with  Washin^on:      I 
know  that  Gouverneur  Morris  ^»«>  ^^l'^^^;^^;;^^^^ 
<Washington*s)  secrets,  and  believed  himself  to  be  so  haa 
often  told  me  that  Washington  believed  no  more  m  that 
:ystem  (Christianity)  than  he  himself  did.;     This  one 
quotation  is  sufficient   to  setUe  the   <l^«»^;^^  "J^^  ^ 
Morris'  views  are  concerned.    Had  he  been  a  Chr«  he 
would  hardly  have  repeatedly  told  Jefferson  that  Wash- 
ington  did  not  believe  in  the  Christian  religion.    If » ^.^« 
thought  Washington  an  unbeliever,  and  l^^wishe^  to  show 
the  fact,  he  would  hardly  have  compared  WaBhington  with 
l^imself  unless  he  was  perfectly  wiUing  to  have  it  under, 
atood  that  he  was  also  an  unbeliever.    If  1^  was  a  Chxia- 
tian  at  all,  he  was  of  the  same  type  with  Jefferson.    Aiter 
he  is  dead  and  buried  it  is  very  easy  to  set  up  the  claim  that 
he  was  a  Christian,  but  in  this  case  the  claim  greatly  needs 

"^^orstm  adhere  to  the  idea  of  Paine's  -Infamy^  and  say 
you  meant  that  the  -period  of  his  infamy  began  when  hebe- 
cameinfamous."  As  he  never  became  infamous,  tiietmietr^d^ 
is  very  indefinite.  When  he  wrote  the  "Age  of  Reason ' 
he  was  far  from  infamous.  That  effort  was  glorious;  it  la 
so  regarded  now,  and  will  be  for  centuries  to  come.    It  is  a 

little  singular  after  admitting  that  ''^^^'J'^^'^^nt 
talent,"  That -hU  assistance  in  the  cause  of  mdependeno. 
w.!v;iy  great;  that  he  had  good  traits,  that  he  was  honest. 


.1 
■i 


•Si 


m 


gs- 


THB  irCMPHUKT  •  BENNETT  J>TSCI7S8I0H; 


BOt  uncbaritabTe^  that  he  abstained  from  profanity,  that  he^ 
•pposed  slavery,  etc,  that  you  should  still  iasist  that  he  wa» 
infamou9i  Is  that  a  Ghfistiim  spirit!  Is  it  infamous  to* 
doubt? 

» 

You  are  mistaken  about  my  speaking  contcmptiwiisly  of 
Madame  Roland.  Nothing  could  be  farther  from  me.  It 
is  not  contemptuous  to  regard  her  or  to  speak  of  her  as  a 
woman.  To  show  Paine  to  not  have  been  a  statesman,  yoa 
quoted  this  lady.  Thinking,  as  a  general  thing,  women  are 
not  so  weU  informed  as  to  what  pertains  to  statesmanship  a& 
men,  I  thought  your  case  would  have  have  been  stronger 
had  you  quoted  some  masculine  authority  on  that  head. 

You  allude  to  the  formation  of  tiie  Constitution  of  our 
country,  and  make  the  singular  assertion  that  *'  it  was  not 
the  work  of  Infklels,  but  was  the  achievement  of  believer» 
In  the  Holy  Scriptures."  Here  you.  are  wrong,  at  least  par- 
tially so.  It  was  a  mixed  convention  of  believers  and  un» 
believers  that  framed  our  Constitution.  If  a  large  share  of 
them  were  Christians,  they  were  Jefferscmian  Christians, 
who  believed  very  little,  and  had  but  little  reverence  fop 
antique  superstitions.  In  proof  of  this,,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  adduce  the  fact  that  neither  God,  Jesus  Christ,  nor  the- 
Bible  are  recognized  nor  mentioned  in  that  remarkable  in- 
strument If  they  were  strong  believers  in  the  trio,  and 
deemed  their  recognition  of  any  special  importance,  they 
were  certainly  very  remiss  in  their  duty  in  not  inserting 
them  and  founding  the  government  upon  them.  I  think 
were  a  convention  of  leading  Christians  held  to-day  to  frame 
another  Constitution  for  our  country,  and  it  were  composed 
of  the  highest  Reverends  in  the  land,  including  Bro. 
Talmage,  Bro.  Fulton,  Bro.  Tyng,  Bro.  Deems,  Bro. 
Crosby,  Bro.  Moody  and  yourself,  that  *'€k)d,"his  "Soa 
Jesus  Christ,"  and  the  "  Holy  Scriptures"  would  most  un- 
mistakably appear  in  the  instrument,  and  every  man  who  pre- 
sumed to  doubt  them  would  have  but  few  rights  and  pre-^ 
lOg^ves.    What  a  world  of  untasinsM  would  have  been 


I 


THE  HUMPUTIEY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 

paved  to  millions  of  the  pious  Christians  of  to-day  had  the 
f  ramers  of  the  Constitution  recognized  Jehovah,  Jesus  and 
the  Bible.  It  would  have  spared  them  the  great  labor  of  get- 
ting up  mammoth  petitions,  bearing  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  names,  asking  that  the  instrument  be  amended,  and  that 
the  great  trio  be  recognized. 

It  is  hard  to  estimate  with  any  accuracy  how  many  times 
the  f  ramers  of  our  glorious  Constitution  have  been  devoutly 
but  secretly  cursed  for  this  unpardonable  omission.    They 
were  not  near  equal  to  the  f ramers  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Confederate  States,  for  they  recognized  God,  Jesus,  and 
the  Bible,  in  the  true  Christian  spirit.    But,  nevertheless, 
it  did  not  avail  them.    With  all  their  veneration,  all  their 
reliance,  all  their  prayers  for  success,  their  Constitution  and 
their  cause  had  to  go  by  the  board,  while  our  Constitution, 
without  a  God,  or  a  son  of  a  God,  or  a  Bible  of  any  kind  in 
it,  the  Constitution  upon  which  is  based  the  government 
which  Washington  solemnly  declared  "not  in  any  senm 
founded  on  the  Christian  religion,"  was  triumphant  and  is 

so  still. 

I  think  it  is  quite  fair  to  conclude  that  the  Christian  ele- 
ment was  not  strong  in  the  convention  that  framed  our  Con- 
stitution or  there  would  have  been  some  Christianity  in  it. 
Its  God,  its  Savior,  or  its  revealed  law,  would  assured- 
ly have  been  mentioned.  I  think  that,  under  the  circum 
stances,  much  boasting  of  their  ultra  Christianity  is  decided- 
ly superfluous.  Our  Constitution,  essenlially  Infidel  as  it  is, 
ignoring  alike  God,  Christ,  and  the  Bible,  is  a  fair  illustra- 
tion of  how  much  Christianity  and  faith  had  to  do  with  this 
country's  achieving  its  independence  or  in  framing  its  laws. 
Infidelity  was  certainly  as  conspicuous  all  the  way  through 
as  was  Christianity. 

You  say:  "It  would  be  relevant  to  our  subject  to  show 
that  believers  in  the  Bible  have  done  much  more  than  un- 
believers to  bring  about  the  aboUtion  of  American  slav- 
ery."    Yes.  it  would  be  quite  relevant,  if  it  can  bo  done 


i 


I 


1 


90 


THK  HUMPaRBT-BBXNETT  DXSCUBaiOlT. 


TEE  HUH^IlttEy  -  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


m 


r 

r 


trut^fuU^,  In  view  of  the  fact  that  neither  Jehovah  not 
Abraham,  Jacob,  Moaes,  Joshua,  Davici,  Solomon,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah^  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  Jesus,  Peter,  Paul,  the  popes, 
bishops,  and  leading  saints  of  the  Christian  Church,  down  to 
fifty  years  ago,  ever  took  it  upon  themselves  to  say  a  word 
against  the  principle  of  slavery,  it  is  quite  cool  and  refresh- 
ing, this  hot  weather,  to  hear  you  declare  that  the  credit 
of  the  anti-slavery  movement  belon;js  exclusively  to  believ- 
ers in  the  Bible. 

You  say,  '*  Slavery  is  older  than  the  Bible,  therefore  the 
Scriptures  did  not  create  nor  establish  that  institution." 
But  is  slavery  older  than  God  ?  If  he  was  opposed  to  its 
origin  and  continuance  and  yet  it  existed  for  thousands  of 
years,  does  it  not  prove  either  want  of  wiU  or  want  of  power 
on  his  part  ?  If  slavery  was  regarded  as  wrong  by  the 
founders  and  sustainers  of  Christianity,  why  were  they  not 
brave  enough  to  denounce  it  boldly  and  clearly  f  "All  things 
whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto  you,"  etc., 
scarcely  meets  the  case.  It  is  general  and  vague;  besides  it 
was  a  sentiment  abundantly  taught  by  the  Pagan  sages, 
hundreds  of  years  before  he  of  Nazareth  uttered  it. 

If  the  authors  of  the  Bible  were  earnest  and  honest  oppo- 
nents of  slavery,  why  did  they  let  such  injunctions  as  these 
form  so  conspicuous  a  part  of  the  book:  *'A  servant  of  ser- 
vants shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren,"  "  Servants,  obey  your 
masters,"  *'  Obey  them  that  have  role  over  you,"  '<  The 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God,*'  and  much  more  in  the 
same  line  T  If  they  believed  slavery  was  wrong,  why  did 
they  not  say  so  with  force  and  directness  ?  Ah,  my  friend, 
they  were  not  anti-slavery  men,  and  it  is  useless  to  under- 
Uke  to  show  that  they  were.  Who  were  the  leaderg 
and  workers  in  the  anti-slavery  movement  in  this  coun- 
try—earnest  workers  while  the  cause  was  still  unpopular— 
who  fearlessly  risked  their  lives  in  defense  of  the  down- 
trodden f  They  were  Wm.  Lloyd  Garrison,  Stephen  8. 
Foster.  Abby  Kelly,  Theodore  Parker,  Henry  C.  Wright, 


f 


Parker  PilUbury,  Gerrit  Smith,  Wendell  Phillips— liafidels, 
every  one  I  They  were  persistent  opposers  of  slavery  when, 
their  lives  were  endangered  by  that  course,  and  it  was  not 
until  the  cause  had  become  partially  popular  and  safe  that 
the  Christian  Church  embraced  it.  It  was  with  this  as  with 
most  other  reforms,  the  Church  foUotoed,  but  did  not  lead. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Church  for  many  decades  was  a  zeal- 
ous defender  of  slavery.  Many  a  person  was  denied  ad- 
admittance  intoA  church  to  make  an  anti-slavery  speech. 
Leading  Abolitionists  were  mobbed  and  grossly  insulted  by 
church-members.  The  white-cravated  clergy  would  not  be 
seen  upon  anti-slavery  platforms  nor  in  Abolitionist  con- 
ventions. Half  the  Christians  of  the  North  were  in  fa- 
vor of  the  institution,  and  nearly  all  in  the  South,  so  that 
about  three  fourths  of  the  Christians  of  the  United  States 
were  defending  slavery  while  a  great  majority  of  the  Infi- 
dels were  opposing  it. 

The  Churches  North  and  South,  or  a  portion  of  them, 
divided  upon  this  subject.    Your  Church— the  Presbyterian 
—if  I  remember  rightly,  did  not  divide,  but  tacitly  support- 
ed slavery  until  the  war  of  the  rebellion  broke  out,  and 
since  by  force  of  circumstances  and  the  advance  of  Liberal 
ideas  it  has  ceased  to  exist,  they  not  only  shout  over  its  de- 
feat but  claim  great  credit  for  having  killed  it.    How  un- 
just it  is  after  the  Churches  of  the  United  States  upheld 
slavery  for  two  or  three  generations,  while  Infidels  and  un- 
believers were  earnestly  fighting  it,  to  now  turn  around  and 
claim  all  the  honor  of  its  suppression  and  give  the  opposite 
aide  none.    Thus  it  has  been  with  the  cause  of  temperance. 
For  decades  the  Church  opposed  the  cause  of  temperance 
and  threw  cold  water  and  wet  blankets  on  the  struggling 
child  as  long  as  they  could,  and  now  they  fain  would  make 
the  world  believe  they  are  the  parents  of  the  grown  child 
and  have  done  in  its  favor  all  that  has  been  done.    This  is 
not  true.    While  many  Christians  have  been  and  are  now 
earnest  friends  of  temperance,  thousands  and  thousands  for 


I 


93 


TUX  HXnCPHKKT-BTOO'ETT  DISCTTSSTOW. 


M 


■1 

m 


I 


■I 
1 


a  long  time   retarded  its  progress   so  far  as  lay  in  their 
lK)wer. 

The  didtingrtished  clergyman  and  author,  Albert  Barnes^ 
uttered  the  simple  troth  when  he  solemnly  declared  that  th» 
greatest  obstruction  which  the  cause  of  temperance  had  ta 
contend  with  was  the  apathy  and  unfriendliness  of  the 
American  clergy. 

The  brilliant  Rev.  Joseph  Cook,  in  a  recent  discourse  in 
Boston,  made  very  truthful  statements  touting  the  subject 
of  anti'Slavery  in  this  country.  EL©  said:  "  If  the  Northern 
Church  had  done  its  duty  the  South  would  hare  had  no* 
hope  of  a  divided  North,  and  the  war  would  not  have  been» 
Let  not  the  Church  grow  proud  over  the  fall  of  slavery;  it 
was  not  her  work.  The  Church  could  have  refused  to  up- 
hold secession  in  the  South;  it  could  have  made  slave-hold- 
ing a  bar  to  church-membership,  as  the  Quakers  did;  it 
could  have  given  direction  to  the  reform  movement  by  put- 
ting itself  stalwartly  on  the  right  side.  United  action 
would  have  prevented  apathy  in  the  North  and  united  action 
in  the  South,  and  would  have  made  war  impossible.'* 

He  complimented  Theodore  Parker  highly  for  the  faithful 
services  he  performed  in  the  anti-slavery  cause.  He  said: 
**  Theodore  Parker  stood  upon  a  high  pulpit  in  Music  Hall. 
But  it  was  anti-slavery,  and  not  anti-Christianity  that  made 
that  pulpit  as  high  as  Strasburg  steeple.  It  was  high  be- 
cause other  pulpits  were  low.  PEkrker  was  with  God  in  the 
anti-slavery  struggle,  but  the  Church  was  not  where  it  ought 
to  have  been.'* 

The  reverend  gentleman  is  quite  correct.  Parker  was  right 
and  the  Church  was  wrong — "not  where  it  ought  to  have 
been."  Had  the  Church  in  this  country  acted  right  and  in 
concert,  slavery  would  have  been  ended  fifty  years  ago  and 
the  terrible  war  of  slavery-rebellion,  with  its  cost  of  one 
million  lives  of  the  promising  young  men  of  the  North  and 
the  South,  and  five  hundred  millions  of  treasure  might  have 
tieeA  laved.    The  Church  acted  the  dt^tardly  part  iu  the 


THE  IIUMPDREY- BENNETT    DISCUSSION. 


m 


foul  businoss  of  slavery.  It  worked  for  genefations  to  sus- 
tain and  uphold  it,  and  sadly  failed  to  come  up  to  the  high 
instincts  of  human  nature.  It  was  not  the  Church  that 
overthrew  slavery;  it  was  the  spirit  of  humanity  which  per- 
vaded the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  people. 

You  gratuitously  make  uncomplimentary  allusions  to 
Robert  G.  iDgersoll,  and  refer  to  the  time  when  he  cooper- 
ated with  the  pro-slavery  party.  I  cannot  give  the  precise 
date  when  he  left  that  party,  but  perhaps  it  was  about  the 
time  he  turned  his  back  upon  Christianity  and  the  Church. 
You  are  pleased  to  speak  of  his  ''prating  about  the  lib- 
erty of  man,  woman  and  child.**  Yes,  he  jwa^,  and  to  some 
purpose,  too.  There  is  hardly  another  man  in  the  United 
States  doing  so  much  to-day  toward  forming  public  opinion, 
and  in  the  interests  of  humanity  and  truth,  as  is  Col.  Inger- 
BolL  O.  that  there  were  hundreds  more  that  could  prate  like 
him  I  If  the  sixty  thousand  clergymen  of  this  country  could 
prate  as  he  does,  it  would  amount  to  vastly  more  than  the 
idle  and  childish  gating  about  gods  and  devils  and  hells 
which  they  now  give  us. 

I  was  not  aware  that  the  religious  views  of  Abraham  Lin- 
coln were  to  form  a  part  of  this  discussion,  but  I  will  en- 
deavor to  follow  where  you  lead.  Let  us  see  whether  he 
was  a  Christian  or  an  Infidel.  The  position  he  occupied, 
and  the  necessity  which  forced  him  to  strike  the  fetters 
from  the  limbs  of  the  slaves  have  made  him  a  very  distin- 
guished character  in  our  country*s  history,  and  the  Church 
must  needs  claim  him  as  her  own,  so  she  can  monopolize 
the  entire  credit  of  overthrowing  slavery.  Lincoln  had 
clear  and  settled  views  upon  theological  subjects,  which  he 
maintained  through  life,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that,  after 
he  became  exclusively  a  politician  and  realized  now  much 
his  success  depended  upon  the  support  of  the  masses,  a 
large  share  of  wkom  were  at  least  professed  Christians,  he 
did  not  at  all  limes  make  his  secret  views  known;  that  in 
his  public  speeches  he  used  some  of  the  cant  phrases  which 


.      VJ 


94 


TSB  nUMPHRETBMNNETT  DItlGUBSION. 


i- 


t<»* 


I  . 


he  well  knew  would  fall  pleasaQtly  upon  the  ears  of  the  su- 
perstitious masses.  It  must  be  conceded  also,  that  he  did 
occasionally  drop  a  remark  that  might  be  construed  to  mean 
that  he  had  some  faith  in  the  Christian  religion,  and  that 
from  a  spirit  of  playfulness,  or  of  enquiry,  he  appeared  at 
times  to  be.  investigating  the  subject  of  Christianity,  but 
that  Lincoln  was  all  his  life  an  out-and-out  Infidel  is  one  of 
the  clearest  propositions  that  can  be  made;  and  had  I  the 
space  I  could  give  you  many  pages,  of  the  size  of  this,  of 
certificates,  letters,  and  statements  of  the  men  who  knew 
him  intimately,  and  all  confirming  the  fact  of  his  un- 
belief. 

Lincoln  was  eminently  a  kind-hearted,  humane  person, 
but  he  became  an  Infidel  to  Christian  theology  when  a 
mere  youth.  He  never  believed  in  the  divinity  of  the 
Bible,  nor  that  Jesus  Christ  was  Qod  or  the  begotten  Son  of 
God.  By  referring  to  pages  486  and  487  of  Lamon*s  Life  of 
Lincohi  you  will  read  as  follows:  **  Mr.  Lincoln  was  never  a 
member  of  any  church,  nor  did  he  believe  in  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  or  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  sense  un- 
derstood by  evangelical  Christians.  His  theological  opin- 
ions were  substantially  those  expounded  by  Theodore 
Parker.  Overwhelming  testimony  out  of  many  mouths, 
and  none  stronger  than  that  out  of  his  own,  places  these 
facts  beyond  controversy.  When  a  boy  he  showed  no  sign 
of  that  piety  which  his  many  biographers  ascribe  to  hi« 
manhood.  .  .  .  When  he  went  to  church  at  all,  he  went 
to  mock,  and  came  away  to  mimic.  Indeed,  it  is  more 
than  probable  that  the  sort  of  *  religion '  which  prevailed 
among  the  associates  of  his  boyhood  impressed  him  with  a 
very  poor  opinion  of  the  value  of  the  article.  On  the  whole, 
he  thought,  perhaps,  a  person  had  better  be  without  it. 
When  he  removed  to  New  Salem  he  consorted  with  Free- 
thinkers; joined  with  them  in  deriding  the  gospel  history  of 
Jesus;  read  Yolney  and  Paine,  and  then  wrote  a  deliberate 
and  labored  essay  wherein  he  reached  conclusions  similar  to 


I 


TUB  HUMPHREY-BB3JNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


0!^ 


theirs.  The  essay  was  bii^nt  (by  his  friend,  Mr,  Hill)  but 
he  never  denied  or  regretted  its  composition.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  made  it  the  subject  of  free  and  frequent  conversa- 
tion with  his  friends  at  Springfield,  and  stated  with  much 
particularity  and  precision  the  origin,  arguments,  and 
object  of  the  work." 

James  H.  Matheny,  of  Springfield,  111.,  who  intimately 
knew  Mr.  Lincoln  for  over  twenty-five  years,  in  a  letter  to 
Wm.  H.  Herndon,  uses  this  language;  "I  knew  Mr.  Lin- 
coln as  early  as  1834-7;  know  he  was  an  Infidel.    He  and  W. 
B.  Herndon  used  to  talk  infidelity  in  the  Clerk's  Office  in 
this  city,  about  the  years  1837-40.    Lincoln  attacked  the 
Bible  and  the  New  Testament  on  two  grounds;  first,  from 
the  inherent  or  apparent  contradictions  under  its  lids;  sec- 
ond, from  the  grounds  of  reason.    Sometimes  he  ridiculed 
the  Bible  and  the  New  Testament;  sometimes  he  seemed  to 
scoff  at  it,  though  I  shall  not  use  that  word  in  its  full  and 
literal  sense.    I  never  heard  that  Mr.  Lincoln  changed  his 
views,  though  his  personal  and  political  friend  from  1834 
to  1860.    Sometimes  Lincoln  bordered  on  Atheism.    He 
went  far  that  way  and  often  shocked  me.    .    .    .    Lincoln 
would  come  into  the  Clerk's  Office,  and  would  bring  the 
Bible  with  him;  would  read  a  chapter;  argue  agaihst  it.    . 
Lincoln  often,  if  not  wholly,  was  an  Atheist;  at  least,  bor- 
dered on  it.    He  was  enthusiastic  in  his  infidelity.    As  he 
grew  older  he  grew  more  discreet;  didn't  talk  so  much  be- 
fore strangers  about  his   religion ;   but  to  friends,  close 
and  bosom  ones,  he  was  always  open  and  avowed,  fair 
and  honest;  but  to  strangers  he  held  them  off  from  pol- 
icy.   .    .    Mr.  Lincoln  did  tell  me  that  he  did  write  a  little 
book  on  infidelity.    This  statement  I  have  avoided  hereto- 
fore; but  as  you  strongly  insist  upon  it,  I  give  it  to  you  as 
I  got  it  from  Lincoln's  mouth  "  (Lamon's  Life  of  Lincoln, 

pp.  487  and  488). 

Mr.   Lamon  gives  numerous  other  letters  of  the  same 
tenor  from  the  old  friends  and  acquaintances  of  Lincoln, 


94 


TEB  nUMFHBBTBENNETT  DlfetCCSaiOK. 


■ii- 


,..,. 


r. 


he  well  kBCW  would  fall  pleasaDlly  upon  the  ears  of  the  su- 
perstitious masses.  It  must  be  conceded  also,  that  he  did 
occasionally  drop  a  remark  that  might  be  construed  to  mean 
that  he  had  some  faith  in  the  Christian  religion,  and  that 
from  a  spirit  of  playfulness,  or  of  enquiry,  he  appeared  at 
times  to  be.  investigating  the  subject  of  Christianity,  but 
that  Lincoln  was  all  his  life  an  out-and-out  Infidel  is  one  of 
the  clearest  propositions  that  can  be  made;  and  had  I  the 
space  I  could  give  you  many  pages,  of  the  size  of  this,  of 
certificates,  letters,  and  statements  of  the  men  who  knew 
him  intimately,  and  all  confirming  the  fact  of  his  un- 
belief. 

Lincoln  was  eminently  a  kind-hearted,  humane  person, 
but  he  became  an  Infidel  to  Christian  theology  when  a 
mere  youth.  He  never  believed  in  the  divinity  of  the 
Bible,  nor  that  Jesus  Christ  was  God  or  the  begotten  Son  of 
God.  By  referring  to  pages  486  and  487  of  Lamon's  Life  of 
Lincohi  you  will  read  as  follows:  **  Mr.  Lincoln  was  never  a 
member  of  any  church,  nor  did  he  believe  in  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  or  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  sense  un- 
derstood  by  evangelical  Christians.  His  theological  opin- 
ions were  substantially  those  expounded  by  Theodore 
Parker.  Overwhelming  testimony  out  of  many  mouths, 
and  none  stronger  than  that  out  of  his  own,  places  these 
facts  beyond  controversy.  When  a  boy  he  showed  no  sign 
of  that  piety  which  his  many  biographers  ascribe  to  his 
manhood.  .  .  .  When  he  went  to  church  at  all,  he  went 
to  mock,  and  came  away  to  mimic.  Indeed,  it  is  more 
than  probable  that  the  sort  of  'religion*  which  prevailed 
among  the  associates  of  his  boyhood  impressed  him  with  a 
very  poor  opinion  of  the  value  of  the  article.  On  the  whole, 
he  thought,  perhaps,  a  person  had  better  be  without  it. 
When  he  removed  to  New  Salem  he  consorted  with  Free- 
thinkers; joined  with  them  in  deriding  the  gospel  history  of 
Jesus;  read  Volney  and  Paine,  and  then  wrote  a  deliberate 
and  labored  essay  wherein  he  reached  conclusions  similar  to 


i\' 


THB  HUMPHUEY-BRNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


05 


theirs.  The  essay  was  biltnt  (by  his  friend,  Mr.  Hill)  but 
he  never  denied  or  regretted  its  composition.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  made  it  the  subject  of  free  and  frequent  conversa- 
tion with  his  friends  at  Springfield,  and  stated  with  much 
particularity   and   precision   the    origin,   arguments,   and 

object  of  the  work." 

James  H.  Matheny,  of  Springfield,  111.,  who  intimately 
knew  Mr.  Lincoln  for  over  twenty-five  years,  in  a  letter  to 
Wm.  H.  Herndon,  uses  this  language:  **I  knew  Mr.  Lin- 
coln as  early  as  1834-7;  know  he  was  an  Infidel.    He  and  W. 
I).  Herndon  used  to  talk  infidelity  in  the  Clerk's  Office  in 
this  city,  about  the  years  1837-40.    Lincoln  attacked  the 
Bible  and  the  New  Testament  on  two  grounds;  first,  from 
the  inherent  or  apparent  contradictions  under  its  lids;  sec- 
ond, from  the  grounds  of  reason.    Sometimes  he  ridiculed 
the  Bible  and  the  New  Testament;  sometimes  he  seemed  to 
scoff  at  it,  though  I  shall  not  use  that  word  in  its  full  and 
literal  sense.    I  never  heard  that  Mr.  Lincoln  changed  his 
views,  though  his  personal  and  political  friend  from  1834 
to  1860.    Sometimes  Lincoln  bordered  on  Atheism.    He 
went  far  that  way  and  often  shocked  me.    .    .    .    Lincoln 
would  come  into  the  Clerk's  Office,  and  would  bring  the 
Bible  with  him;  would  read  a  chapter;  argue  agaihst  it.    . 
Lincoln  often,  if  not  wholly,  was  an  Atheist;  at  least,  bor- 
dered on  it.    He  was  enthusiastic  in  his  infidelity.    As  he 
grew  older  he  grew  more  discreet;  didn't  talk  so  much  be- 
fore strangers  about  his  religion ;  but  to  friends,  close 
and  bosom  ones,  he  was  always  open  and  avowed,  fair 
and  honest;  but  to  strangers  he  held  them  off  from  pol- 
icy.   .    .    Mr.  Lincoln  did  tell  me  that  he  did  write  a  little 
book  on  infidelity.    This  statement  I  have  avoided  hereto- 
fore; but  as  you  strongly  insist  upon  it,  I  give  it  to  you  as 
I  got  it  from  Lincoln's  mouth  "  (Lamon's  Life  of  Lincoln, 

pp.  487  and  488). 

Mr.  Lamon  gives  numerous  other  letters  of  the  same 
tenor  from  the  old  friends  and  acquaintances  of  Lincoln, 


li 


% 


r 


tI© 


TBM  HUmPHIIET-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION, 


'i  I 

i 


bearing  testimony  of  his  infidelity.    I  would  be  glad  to  laf 
them  before  you  and  my  readers,  but  space  will  not  permit 
their  introduction  here.    I  will  give  in  addition  a  few  pas- 
sages from  a  letter  of  the  Hon.  John  T.  Stuart,  of  Spring- 
field, III:  "I  knew  Mr.  Lincoln  when  he  first  came  here, 
and  for  years  afterwards.     He  was  an  avowed  and  open 
Infidel ;  sometimes  bordered  on  Atheism.    Lincoln  went 
further  against  Christian  beliefs,  doctrines  and  principlei 
than  any  man  I  ever  heard.    ...    He  always  denied  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ  of  God;  denied  that  Jesus  was  the  Son 
of  God,  as  understood  and  maintained  by  the  Christian 
Church.    The  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  who  wrote  a  letter,  tried  to 
convert  Lincoln  from  infidelity  so  late  as  1858,  and  couldn't 
do  it!"    Also  the  following  from  Wm.  H.  Herndon  Esq., 
who  probably  knew  Mr.  Lincoln  as  intimately  as  did  any 
man  in  America:  "As  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  religious  views,  he 
was,  in  short,  an  Infidel.    .    .    A  Theist.    He  did  not 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  God;  was  a  fatalist,  denied 
the  freedom  of  the  will.    Mr.  Lincoln  told  me  a  thousand 
times  that  he  did  not  believe  the  Bible  was  the  revelation  of 
God,  as  the  Christian  world  contends.    The  points  that  Mr, 
Lincoln  tried  to  demonstrate  (in  his  book)  were:  **  First, 
that  the  Bible  was  not  God's  revelation;  second,  that  Jeeus 
was  not  the  Son  of  God.     I  assert  this  on  my  own  knowledge, 
and  on  my  veracity."    Mr.  Lamon  gives  more  than  twenty 
pages  of  similar  matter,  but  I  must  quote  no  more.    Now, 
in  the  face  of  all  this,  it  is  rather  up-hill  work  to  make  ft 
pious  ChristMu  of  Lincoln. 

If  you  can  make  a  good  Christian  of  a  man  who  totally 
denies  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible, 
and  who  borders  upon  Atheism,  why  Ingersoll,  Underwood 
and  myself  might  as  well  be  counted  in  at  once.  We  have 
not  been  more  pronounced  in  our  infidelity,  either  by  speak- 
ing or  writing,  than  was  Abraham  Lincoln.  There  is  no  use 
in  trying  to  evade  the  testimony  of  honorable  men  who 
knew  him  for  a  life-time,  and  quote  against  their  evide&co 


THB   HUMPHRBT-BENNBTT   DISCUSSION. 


97 


what  some  priest  or  interested  sectarian  biographer  might 
imagine  or  wish  as  to  Lincoln's  views. 

As  to  Mr.  Colfax,  he  did  say  in  his  lecture  delivered  in 
Brooklyn,  March  25th,  1876,  that  Lincoln  was  not  a  believer 
in  Christianity.  I  got  it  from  a  party  who  heard  the  lec- 
ture. It  was  so  reported  also  in  some  of  the  daily  papers, 
and  to  make  the  thing  doubly  sure,  a  friend  of  mine  writing 
to  a  party  in  South  Bend,  Ind.,  the  home  of  Colfax,  asked 
him  to  call  upon  Colfax  and  enquire  of  him  in  regard 
to  Lincoln's  belief.  He  did  so,  and  Colfax  confirmed  what 
he  had  said  in  his  lecture.  But  as  Colfax  knows  no  more 
about  Lincoln's  religious  opinions  than  hundreds  of  others, 
and  inasmuch  as  the  veracity  of  this  •*  Christian  statesman  " 
on  some  other  important  matters  has  been  seriously  ques- 
tioned, pertaining  to  questionable  operations  in  which  ho 
was  implicated,  I  will  not  insist  upon  his  testimony  being 
taken  in  this  case. 

Now,  as  we  are  about  taking  leave  of  this  branch  of  our 
discussion  let  us  take  a  brief  review  of  the  ground  gone 
over  and  the  results  achieved.  I  claim,  in  the  first  place,  to 
have  shown  that  the  original  pure  article  of  Christianity  as 
taught  by  its  founders  does  not  recognize  nor  admit  the 
right  of  its  devotees  to  fight  for  national  or  personal  liberty, 
and  that  those  who  do  so  violate  the  injunctions  imperative- 
ly given  against  fighting  under  any  circumstances,  and  to 
that  extent,  are  Infidels;  hence  the  Americans,  in  addition 
to  being  rebels,  were  Infidels  also. 

I  claim  to  have  shown  that  the  perpons  who  did  most  to- 
wards arousing  the  Colonists  to  the  fighting-point,  in  con- 
ducting and  fighting  the  battles  of  the  lievolution,  and  in 
organizing  the  form  of  government  we  have  since  lived 
under,  were  Infidels.  Those  men  were  Franklin,  Washing- 
ton, Paine,  Jefferson,  Allen,  etc.,  etc. 

I  claim  to  have  shown  that  our  Constitution  is  an  Infidel 
instrument,  entirely  ignoring  God,  Christ,  and  the  Bible. 
I  daim  also  to  have  shown  that  the  warfare  against 


II 


I 


"  {  -■ 


«-  TBS  HtJMPHRET-BKNNETT  DTSCUaSIOlff. 

American  slayery  was  originated  and  continued  for  decades 
by  leading  Infidels,  while  the  Church  lent  its  power  and  in- 
fluence  in  favor  of  the  slaveholders;  and  finally. 

I  have  shown  that  the  man  who.  at  one  blow,  struck  off 
the  fetters  of  four  millions  of  slaves,  was  a  sUunch,  per- 
slstent  Infidel,  Honest  Abraham  Lincoln. 

I  am.  Dear  Sir,  very  truly  yours, 


il 


PART    II. 

The    Servickb   of   iNriDELiTY   and    Chbistianitt  to 

Leahhing  and  Science. 


MR.     HUMPHRBT. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Bennett,  Bear  Sir:  Just  a  word  of  review, 
and  then  we  will  proceed  to  the  second  proposition. 

You  say  my  **  gun  scattered  widely."  There  are  two  rea- 
sons for  that: — the  comprehensiveness  of  the  subject,  and 
the  "scattered"  condition  of  the  "game.*'  Perhaps  you 
ought  to  be  thanked  for  the  tacit  admission  that  my  "  scat- 
tering shot  kiUs,"  There  are  indications,  however,  that  you 
will  die  **  game." 

Ghosts  will  not  down.  You  repeat  what  you  have  already 
said  about  Franklin,  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  others.  I 
will  refer  you  to  my  former  letters,  and  especially  to  the 
references  contained  therein,  for  a  disproof  of  those  reiter- 
ations. I  am  more  anxious  to  furnish  the  firmest  facts  and 
the  strongest  arguments  than  to  get  the  ktst  word. 

If  you  will  re-peruse  my  last  letter  you  will  find  proof  that 
John  Wesley  did  not  "endorse  and  father  bitter  arguments 
and  invectives  against  the  Colonists."  There  is  not  a  "  bit- 
ter" word  in  his  "  Calm  Address;"  and  in  his  letter  to  Lord 
North  he  spoke  in  the  most  respectful  and  flattering  terms 
of  the  Americans, 

As  to  the  religious  views  of  the  framers  of  our  Constitu- 


too 


THB  nUMPHRET-BSNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


w 


tion,  1  will  let  the  reader  choose  between  your  assertion  and 
Judge  Story's  opinion,  quoted  in  my  last  letter. 

The  Slavery  question  is  a  complicated  subject.  One  thing, 
however,  is  certain,  viz;  that  "the  pianeers  of  modern  Ab- 
olitionism were  almost  uniformly  devout,  pious,  church- 
nurtured  men  "  (Greeley's  American  Conflict,  vol.   i,  p. 
121).    William  Lloyd  Garrison  was  a  church-member  when 
he  started    out    as   an   Abolitionist.     Wendell    Phillips' 
religious   position   is   somewhat    uncertain.     But   he    is 
not  an  Infidel  of  the  Paine  stamp.    A  writer  in  the  Boston 
InvesHgatar,  May  30, 1877,  condemns  and  ridicules  him  be- 
cause he  gave  an  exhortation  in  one  of  his  speeches  to  "take 
heed  to  the  promises  of  God,"  and  to  **  trust  the  future  to 
God."    Ben  J.   Lundy,  the  Jirtt  Abolitionist,  properly  so- 
called,  was  an  orthodox  Quaker  (Greeley's  Am.  Conflict, 
vol.  i,  pp.  Ill,  118).    So  is  John  G.  Whittier.    W.  C.  Bry- 
ant is  a  Universalist    Gerrit  Smith,  though  not  a  church- 
member,  had  family  worship  in  his  bouse.    The  Paineites 
who  identified  themselves  with  the  Abolition  movement 
were  very  scarce  indeed.    On  the  other  hand,  Christians  es- 
poused the  cause  when  it  was  "unpopular."    It  cost  sever, 
al  of  them  their  lives.    Who  can  estimate  the  influence  of 
Mrs.  Stowe's  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"?    Who  can  measure 
the  eflfects  of  Albert  Barnes'  anti-slavery  utterances  as  ex- 
pressed in  his  "  Notes  "  and  other  writings  f    If  many  min- 
Isters  were  gagged  by  fear  or  policy,  or  received  the  hush- 
money  of  the  wealthy  slave-holder,  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  there  were  clergymen— and  they  were  not  a  few— that, 
dared  cry  aloud  against  the  iDJustice  and  inhumanity  of 
slavery.    Religious  bodies  declared  against  it.    Ever  since 
the  Revolution  the  Quakers  have  refused  membership  to 
•uch  as  traffic  in  slaves.    The  Congregationalists,  Baptists, 
Presbyterians,  and  Methodists,  have  not  always  been  con- 
sistent on  this  question;  but  they  have  repeatedly,  in  their 
highest  tribunals,  expressed  their  disapproval  of  slavery. 
Thii  ii  more  than  was  done  by  any  "Radical  Club  "or 


I  vHm  9 


THE  HUMPHBET-BENNETT  DISCDSSION. 


101 


"Liberal  Association."  People  who  do  little  or  nothing 
themselves  are  often  the  readiest  to  criticise  the  doings  of 
others. 

You  try  to  make  out  that  Lincoln  was  an  Infidel.  When 
you  thought  you  had  Colfax  on  your  side,  you  called  him 
a  *♦  respectable  Christian  authority  "  (Sages,  p.  774);  but  af- 
ter discovering  that  he  is  against  you,  you  say  sneeringly 
that  the  "veracity  of  this  Christian  statesman  on  some 
other  important  matters  baa  been  seriously  questioned." 
This  is  only  the  fox  crying  "  Sour  grapes."  We  have  four 
elaborate  biographies  of  Lincoln— Arnold's,  Raymond's, 
Dr.  J.  G.  Holland's  and  Lamon's.  The  first  three  say  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  a  believer  in  the  Christian  religion.  Holland 
especially  is  clear  and  strong  on  this  point.  Lamon  alone 
tries  to  make  out  that  he  was  a  skeptic. 

The  following  points  should  be  carefully  considered  re- 
specting Mr.  Lamon's  "Life  of  Lincoln:"  . 

1.  It  extends  only  to  Lincoln's  inauguration  as  President. 

2.  It  studiously  avoids  quotations  from  Lincoln's  own 
utterances. 

8.  It  bears  internal  evidence  that  the  writer  is  anxious  to 
establish  this  allegation.    Infidelity,  too,  has  its  "interested" 

biographers. 

4.  The  witnesses  that  Mr.  Lamon  brings  forward  are  in- 
consistent and  contradictory.  One  says  Lincoln  "some- 
times bordered  on  Atheism,"  while  another  declares  "he 
fully  believed  in  a  superintending  and  overruling  provi- 
dence." One  tells  us  he  was  "  utterly  incapable  of  insincer- 
ity," while  another  insinuates  that  "he  *played  a  sharp 
game'  on  the  Christians  of  Springfield."  One  informs  us 
that  he  was  a  "fatalist;"  and  then  the  biographer  assures 
us  **Mr.  Lincola  was  by  no  means  free  from  a  kind  of  be- 
lief in  the  supernatural."  Hon.  David  Davis  says:  "I  do 
not  know  anything  about  Lincoln's  religion,  and  I  do  not 
think  anybody  knew:"  but  Hon.  John  T.  Stuart  says:  "He 
was  an  avowed  end  open  InfideL' 


-J 


I 
I 


M 


•H 


103 


THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  HUMTHllET-IJENNETT  DISCUSSION, 


108 


The  jewel  of  consistency  is  not  to  be  found  in  this  mass 
of  testimony.  The  truth  is,  the  whole  thing  is  the  result  of 
Mr.  Hemdon*s  culling,  collocation,  jury-packing  and  special 
p!auling.  This  Mr.  Hemdon  is  himself  a  **  Freethinker  •/' 
and  he  was  deeply  *'  interested  '*  in  showing  that  his  famoua 
partner  held  views  similar  to  his  own. 

If  Lincoln  was  an  Infidel,  how  was  it  that  his  political 
opponents  did  not  bring  this  charge  against  him  in  the  cam- 
paign of  1860  ?  If  he  was  an  Infidel,  and  *'  incapable  of 
insincerity,'*  why  did  he  say  that  **  Chritt  ia  God,''  and  that 
'*  intelligence,  patriotism,  and  Christianity  ....  are 
still  competent  to  adjust  in  the  best  way  our  present  diffl- 
culty  "r  If  he  was  an  Infidel,  how  was  it  that  he  asked  the 
people  of  Springfield  to  pray  for  him,  when  he  was  leaving 
them  to  assume  his  Presidential  duties  f  Mr.  Homdon  said 
he  '*  was  mortified,  if  not  angry,  to  see  him  (Lincoln)  made 
a  hypocrite**  (Lamon*s  Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  496).  But  Mr. 
Lincoln  mutt  have  beet^  either  a  hypocrite,  or  a  believer  in 
the  Christian  Religion,  as  the  citations  given  above,  and 
many  more  that  might  be  added,  clearly  prove.  Christiana 
have  never  charged  Lincoln  with  hypocrisy,  but  Infidels 
Aaw,  and  Mr.  Hemdon  is  as  guilty  of  this  as  anybody.  (See 
Lamon*s  Life  of  Lincoln,  pp.  487-604) 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  second  proposition,  That  be* 

LIEVEBS  IN    THE   BiBLB    HATE    DONE    MORE    THAN    UNBB* 
LISVER8  TO  FBOMOTE  SCIBK«B  AND  LEARNING. 

I  will  occupy  my  remaining  space  with  proof  that  th« 
Bible 'itself  contains  nothing  inimical  to  science  and  learn> 
ing,  but  that,  contrariwise,  it  praises  and  encourages 
them.  When  the  Jewish  people  were,  according  to  the  nar- 
rative,  objects  of  the  Lord's  special  care  and  instruction, 
Ihey  were  inferior  to  no  race  in  their  cultivation  of  the  arts 
and  sciences.  They  were  eminently  a  civilized  nation. 
The  Scriptures  never  mention  skill,  invention,  and  refine- 
ment with  disrespect  On  the  contrary,  they  represent  the 
Most  High  as  commanding  the  first  man  to  discover  and 


utilize — in  one  word,  *•  subdue  " — the  forces  and  resources 
of  Nature.  In  the  fourth  chapter  of  Genesis  we  find  hon- 
orable mention  of  Jubal,  as  the  first  musician;  of  Tubal- 
Cain  as  the  first  foundry-man;  and  of  Lamech  as  the  first 
poet  And  the  first  poem  of  this  poet  is  preserved.  Noth- 
ing is  condemned  in  the  antediluvians  but  their  wickedness.. 
Koah,  it  is  said,  was  an  object  of  the  Divine  favor.  But 
he  must  have  been  a  first-class  architect,  and  practical 
builder,  or  he  could  never  have  constructed  the  ark.  And 
he  must  have  been  no  mean  naturalist,  when  he  could  class- 
ify the  animals  according  to  his  instructions.  Even  if  yon 
regard  this  whole  account  as  mythical,  it  will  still  remaia 
that  Genesis  speaks  with  approval  of  art  and  architecture. 

The  Tower  of  Babel  indicates  an  advanced  stage  of  civ- 
ilization. The  people  had  a  language.  And  their  applied 
ambition  showed  that  they  were  not  inferior  to  the  build- 
ers of  the  Pyramids. 

Abraham  possessed  considerable  knowledge  of  surgery, 
as  is  evinced  by  his  administering  the  rite  of  circumcision. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  were  among  the  most  civilized 
people  of  the  world.  In  the  course  of  events,  the  descend- 
ants of  Abraham  made  their  abode  with  that  people  for  a 
period  exceeding  four  hundred  years.  There  they  learned 
all  that  the  Egyptians  knew.  The  common  people  obtained 
a  knowledge  of  the  practical  arts,  by  a  hard  experience,  and 
the  more  fortunate  Moses  acquired  the  learning  and  science 
of  the  royal  court.  When  they  left  Egypt  they  took  all 
that  knowledge  with  them.  And  they  added  to  it  by  their 
subsequent  contact  with  other  nations,  and  as  the  result  of 
their  varied  observation.  If  you  examine  Josephus  and  the 
Old  Testament,  you  will  discover  that  the  Jews  were  infe- 
rior to  none  in  their  study  and  practice  of  the  arts  and 
frciences  that  characterized  ancient  civilization. 

The  women  were  exquisite  cooks.  They  could  make 
bread,  leavened  and  unleavened,  and  cakes  of  all  kinds. 
They  could  roast,  fry,  and  broil  meat    Th^  knew  how  to 


"H, 


v^ 


-rrr" 


101  THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSIOH. 

make  butler  and  cliccse.    In  short,  they  could  get  up  a  meal 

in  first-class  style. 

They  were  excellent  milliners  and  dress-makers.  They 
couia  use  cosmetics  to  as  great  advantage  as  any  of  our 
modern  ladies.  If  jewelry,  and  rich  apparel,  made  most 
tastefully,  are  indicative  of  civilisation,  then,  most  assur- 
edly,  the  Jewish  women  were  highly  civilised.  The  latter 
part  of  the  third  chapter  of  Isaiah  sounds  very  much  like  a 
scrap  from  some  olden  DemoresC 

And  the  men  were  equal  to  the  women.    Their  division 
of  Canaan  ehowe  that  they  possessed  considerable  knowl- 
edge  of  surveying.    They  were  well  versed  in  geography, 
as  their  frequent  allusions  to  it  Indicate.    They  were  inter- 
ested  in  astronomy,  as  their  naming  of  several  constellations 
signifies  (Job.  Ix.  9;  Is.  xiii.  10;  Amos  v.  8).    They  were 
familiar  with  the  uses  of  medicine,  and  the  diagnosis  of 
disease,  as  is  proved  by  their  law  respecting  leprosy,  and  by 
the  frequent  mention  of  physicians  and  healing    herbs. 
They  were  well  acquainted  with  books,  as  their  many  ref- 
erenoes  to  them  show.    They  had  a  taste  for  poetry,  and  an 
appreciation  of  first-class  poets,  as  is  evidenced  by  their  fond- 
liess  of  Job.  the  Psalms,  and  Isaiah.    They  were  superior 
musicians.    They  were  fine  players  on  the  organ,  fiute. 
harp,  trumpet,  cymbal,  dulcimer,  drum,  psaltery,  timbrel, 
gittith,  higgaion,  sackbut,  and    the  harp  of  a  thousand 
strings.    They  were  i^ccurate  historians,  as  their  genealog- 
ical tables,  and  the  Bible  itself  attest.    They  were  the  very 
best  of  architects,  as  the  tabernacle,  their  cities,  and  espe- 
cially their  Temple,  demonstrate.    Bvery  Jew  was  required 
to  learn  some  substantial  trade. 

They  had  fixed  weights  and  measures,  an  established  cur- 
rency, and  a  calendar  equal  to  Caesar's  or  Gregory's.  They 
were  active  in  domestic  and  foreign  commerce.  Their  ships 
traversed  the  seas.  They  encouraged  phUosophy.  They 
honored  statesmanship.  They  had  their  seven  wise  men.  as 
well  as  Qreece.    Solomon  was  the  pride  of  the  Old  Bcono* 


THE  HUMPHBBT-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


105 


my,  because  he  was  a  great  natural  philosopher.  "  He 
spake  three  thousand  proverbs;  and  his  songs  were  a  thou> 
sand  and  five.  And  he  spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar  tree 
that  is  in  Lebanon  even  unto  the  hyssop  that  springeth  out 
of  the  wall :  he  spake  also  of  beasts,  and  of  fowl,  and  of 
creeping  things  and  of  fishes"  (1  Kings  iv.  82,  33).  He  was  a 
Tupper.  a  Linnseus,  an  Audubon,  a  Cuvler,  and  an  Agassiz, 
all  In  one. 

Nor  is  the  New  Testament  less  friendly  than  the  Old  to 
learning  and  science.  Jesus  wept  as  he  contemplated  the 
downfall  of  the  beautiful  Jerusalem.  It  was  with  profound 
sorrow  that  he  foretold  the  destruction  of  the  Temple— that 
crown  of  ancient  architecture.  His  many  parables  show 
that  he  was  a  close  observer  and  tender  admirer^  of  Nature. 
Very  significantly,  his  first  worshipers  were  the  sa^es  and 
saeans  of  the  East.  When  only  twelve  years  old,  he  sought 
the  company  of  the  best  scholars  of  the  land.  His  '*  learn- 
ing "was  the  wonder  of  his  cotemporaries  (John  vii:15). 
If  he  chose  illiterate  disciples,  it  was  in  order  that  he  might 
educate  them.  The  last  Apostle  whom  he  called  had  passed 
through  the  two  best  schools  in  the  world  in  that  age — the 
classical  school  at  Tarsus,  and  the  divinity  school  at  Jerusa- 
lem. This  Apostle  Paul  visited  the  greatest  cities  of  the 
world.  He  beheld  the  highest  monuments  of  genius. 
Bid  he  show  them  any  disrespect?  Never.  He  was  at 
Ephesus,  and  saw  the  temple  of  Diana— one  of  the  Seven 
Wonders;  but  he  did  not  utter  a  word  against  its  artistic 
and  sculptural  grandeur.  He  was  at  Corinth,  and  looked 
upon  the  crowning  achievements  of  culture  and  refinement. 
He  found  no  fault  with  the  inipregnable  fortress  of  the 
Acrocorintbus.  He  expressed  no  contempt  for  Corinth's 
extensive  commerce,  or  for  its  invention  of  the  triremes. 
He  was  at  Athens.  He  quoted  their  own  poets  to  the 
Athenians.  He  walked  through  the  Acropolis  and  wit- 
nessed the  Erechtheum  and  that  masterpiece  of  Phidias — the 
tnow-white  Parthenon.    The  works  of  the  Greek  masters 


i 


/ 


109 


THB  HUMPHBET-BBimBTT    DIBCUSSIDlT. 


were  all  around  him.  Bat  he  never  said  a  word  derogatorr 
to  Greek  literature  or  to  Greek  art  He  saw.  too,  the  mag- 
nificence of  Rome.  In  its  walls,  arches,  aqueducts,  for- 
tresses, palaces  and  Capitol,  he  found  only  objects  for  admir- 
ation. Paul  condemned  only  "  science  /afe«?y  9(hcalUd »' 
(1  Tim.  Ti-.20).  He  dtspised  only  the  ^ack  philosophy 
that  has  been  the  plague  of  e? ery  age. 

I  have  made  the  foregoing  remarks  to  show  that  ths  BOIU 
ttocy  contains  no  disrespect  to  the  highest  forms  of  civiliza- 
tion. It  rather  sanctions  and  encourages  it  And  it  is  demon- 
stiahle  that  the  most  advanced  type  of  civilizaUon  has  hov- 
ered around  the  Holy  Scriptures  ever  since  they  were  written. 
In  my  next  I  will  try  to  show  some  of  what  professing 
Christians  have  done  to  foster  and  expedite  education  and 
progress.  Yours  sincerely,  G.  VL  Humfhbbt. 


it 

1% 


nR«    BBNRETT* 

Rkv.  G.  H.  Humphrbt,  Dear  Sir:  As  I  cannot  see  that 
in  your  last  you  refuted  any  of  the  positions  I  had  taken,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  give  but  little  space  to  that  portion  of 
your  letter.    You  bring  no  new  argument  to  relieve  Joho 
Wesley  of  the  charge  that  England  had  no  greater  foe  ta 
the  cause  of  the  American  colonists  than  himself,  and  that 
he  espoused  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Johnson,  who  denounced 
the  colonists  as  a  race  of  "  convicts,"  and  insinuated  that 
they  ought  to  be  hung.    Johnson  thanked  Wesley  for  join- 
ing him   and  espousing  his  cause;    the  friends  of   the 
American  colonists  in  England  were  much  incensed  against 
Wesley  for  the  course  he  pursued,  and  he  was  most  bitterly 
denounced  in  numerous  pamphlete  and  publications.    Wes- 
ley wielded  a  great  influence  at  that  time,  and  England  had 
no  greater  and  no  more  ardent  foe  to  American  indepea 
dince.    I  think  you  cannot  disprove  this. 


THE  nUMrnREY-BKNNETT  DISCUSSIOK. 


107 


In  regard  to  Lincoln*8  Infidelity,  I  am  quite  content  to 
rest  it  upon  the  testimony  of  a  score  of  life-long  friends 
and  acquaintances  who  knew  him  intimately,  and  had  many 
times  heard  him  express  himself  pointedly  upon  theological 
questions,  and  in  opposition  to  the  belief  of  Christians.  I 
place  their  evidence  far  above  that  of  interested  parties  wri- 
ting in  the  interest  of  the  Church,  or  with  a  purpose  to  show 
him  to  be  what  he  was  not.  The  discrepancies  you  enumer- 
ate are  more  apparent  than  real.  There  is  i^p  material  disa- 
greement. They  merely  illustrate  how  different  men  may 
express  themselves  upon  a  given  subject.  Nothing  is  better 
proved  than  that  Lincoln  was  an  Infidel  for  more  than  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century,  and  there  is  no  reliable  testimony  that 
he  changed  his  belief  after  going  to  Washington.  His  pri- 
vate secretary  and  intimate  friend,  John  G.  Nicolay,  testified 
that  he  did  not  change.  That  he  occasionally  made  use  of 
ambiguous  remarks  which  might  give  the  impression  that  he 
had  confidence  in  prayer,  etc.,  is  quite  possible,  but  there  is 
no  probability  that  he  believed  that  "Christ  is  God,"  and  I 
do  not  believe  that  he  ever  said  so. 

If  Mr.  William  H.  Herndon  is  an  unbeliever  or  a  "Free- 
thinker," it  by  no  means  invalidates  his  testimony  Or  his 
labors.  That  class  of  men  have  proved  themselves  as  capa- 
ble of  telling  tiie  truth  as  any  men  in  the  world. 

As  to  Colfax,  you  misrepresent  me.  I  have  not  found 
••  his  testimony  against  me."  He  did  say  in  his  speech  that 
Lincoln  was  an  unbeliever  in  Christianity,  and  he  admitted 
the  same  when  a  friend  called  upon  him  at  his  home.  When 
you  reported  that  you  had  written  to  him  and  he  appeared 
to  •*  hedge,"  and  that  he  meant  "  Lincoln  did  not  belong  to 
a  church,"  I  remembered  that  on  other  more  important 
subjects  he  had  been  accused  and  convicted  of  falsehood, 
and  I  said  I  would  not  insist  upon  his  evidence. 

As  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  simple 
fact  that  God,  Cbrist  and  the  Bible  are  entirely  ignored  in 
it,  or  never  mentioned,  goes  much  farther  with  me  in  decid- 


A 


m 


1 


-1 


t 


•!■- 


I 

i 


108  THK   HtJMPHKBT-HENNBTT  WfiCfmSIOK. 

ing  its  Character  than  all  that  ChrUtiaii  pettifoggers  can  saj 
upon  the  subject.  If  the  framers  v>€re  Christians,  and  they 
did  not  think  enough  of  their  God,  their  Savior  and  their 
-  Book  from  heaven"  to  even  allude  to  them,  their  Chris- 
tianity  did  not  amount  to  much.     They  were   no  better 

than  Infidels. 

Now  for  the  second  proposition.    I  must  coufess  myseU 
amused  at  your  efforts  to  make  the  Bible  appear  to  be  a 
book  of  science  or  especially  friendly  to  it.    A  person 
who  can  perceive  much  science  in  that  volume  has  cither  a 
very  acute  or  a  very  accommodating  perception.  Is  the  Bible 
account  of  the  creation  a  scientific  one?   Does  science  teach 
that  light  and  darkness  were  originally  blended  together 
and  had  to  be  separated?    Does  science  teach  that  the 
countless  burning  suns  or  stars  that  stud  the  vault  of  heaven 
^cre  not  brought  into  existence  until  after  the  earth  wm 
formed,  and  were  then  "set"  in  a  firmament  which  held 
a  vast  body  of  water  above  the  earth  from  falling  to  it? 
Does  science  teach  that  the  earth  existed,  had  days  and 
Lights,  brought  forth  plants,  herbs,  shrubs,  and  trees,  per- 
feeling  seeds  and  fruits  before  the  sun  existed  or  before  a 
drop  of  rain  had  fallen  upon  the  earth?    Is  it  a  scientific 
idea  of  the  way  in  which  rain  was  produced— by  opening 
the  windows  of  heaven  (probably  placed  in  the  floor,  or  fir- 
mament,)  letting  the  body  of  water  stored  up  there  de- 
Kcend  to  the  earih,  without  any  provision  being  made  for  ite 
getting  back  again? 

Would  science  teach  that  it  required  Omnipotence  to  work 
five  days  to  make  this  little  globe,  while  the  sun,  a  mill- 
ion  times  larger,  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  thousands  of  times 
larger,  the  countless  millions  of  celestial  orbs  and  suns, 
larger  than  the  entire  solar  system,  could  all  be  made  in  one 

^Tre  the  two  accounts  in  Genesis  of  the  formation  of 
woman  equally  scienlific-the  one  that  she  was  formed  of 
day  at  the  ti»o  Adam  waa,  the  other  that  she  was  not 


4^ 


THE  HUirPHBBT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


109 


formed  until  after  the  animals  were  made  and  named,  when 
«  surgical  operation  was  performed  upon  Adam  and  a  rib 
abstracted,  from  which  she  was  made?  Would  science 
teach  that  a  female  weighing  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 
pounds,  principally  composed  of  hydrogen,  oxygen,  nitro- 
gen, and  carbon,  could  be  produced  from  a  rib  of  phos- 
phate of  lime,  weighing  less  than  a  pound  ? 

The  Bible  states  that  the  earth  was  created  in  five  days, 
in  which  time  all  forms  of  vegetable  and  animal  life  were 
produced.  Science  teaches  that  the  earth  for  vast  ages  was 
ft  ball  of  highly-heated  or  fused  matter,  and  that  immense 
periods  necessarily  had  to  pass  before  there  could  be 
soils,  vegetation,  and  anhnal  life.  The  Bible  teaches  that 
the  earth,  the  sun,  and  all  the  vast  number  of  shining  orbs, 
were  made  less  than  six  thousand  years  ago.  Science  has 
brought  to  light  stars  that  are  so  remote  that  thousands  and 
millions  of  years  are  required  for  their  light  to  reach  our 
earth,  though  it  travels  at  the  rate  of  200,000  miles  per 
second  1  The  Bible  teaches  that  the  earth  was  made  and 
finished  in  the  five  days  that  Jehovah  devoted  to  it.  Sci- 
ence teaches  that  for  incomputable  ages  the  earth  has  been 
growing  by  the  aggregation  of  falling  bodies  of  matter 
accumulated  in  contiguous  space,  and  called  meteors,  aero- 
lites, etc.  Stratum  after  stratum  has  in  this  way  been 
added  to  the  earth's  surface,  but  it  has  taken  ages  upon  ages 
to  effect  it.    The  growth  has  been  slow  and  gradual. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  the  first  formations  of  organized 
life  were  grasses,  herbs,  and  fruit-trees.  Science  teaches 
that  the  lower  orders  of  animals  which  exist  in  water,  as  the 
hydrozoa,  jelly-fish,  star-fish,  etc.,  classed  as  radiata,  and 
clams,  oysters,  etc.,  termed  moUusca,  and  the pdyparia,  ex- 
isted ages  before  grass  and  trees  could  possibly  have  had  an 
existence.  The  Bible  teaches  that  vegetation  of  all  kinds 
was  produced  on  the  same  day.  Science  teaches  that  sea- 
weed and  water-plants  of  various  kinds  existed  long,  long 
before  grass  and  fruit-trees  came  into  being.  What  is  called 


110 


THE  HUMPHREY  -  BENNETT  DI8CU88IOK. 


THE  HUMPHREY  -BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


Ill 


the  coal-plant,  of  which  the  strata  of  coal  over  varioui 
parts  of  the  earth  were  composed,  grew  luxuriantly  thou- 
sands  of  years  before  grass,  shrubbery,  flowering  plants  and 
fruit-trees  had  an  existence. 

The   Bible    teaches    that   birds   and   quadrupeds  were 
brought  into  existence  on  the  same  day  with  reptiles  or 
creeping  things.    Science  teaches  that  birds,  quadrupeds, 
and  mammals  could  not  have  existed  until  long,  long  after 
reptiles  and  cold-blooded  animals  had  been  upon  the  earth. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  man  has  existed  less  than  six  thou 
sand  years.     Science   shows    by  incontrovertible   proofs 
tliat  man  has  existed  on  this  earth  not  less  than  one  hundred 
thousand  years.    The  Bible  teaches  that  man  was  created 
intelligent,  highly  developed,  and  perfect,  and  that  he  fell 
into  ignorance,  degradation,  and  barbarity.    Science  teaches 
that  man  in  prehistoric  times  lived  in  caves,  roved  about 
like  wild  animals,  was  litUe  above  the  brutes,  and  has  grad- 
ually risen  in  the  scale  of  intelligence  and  civilization. 

All  these  truths  which  science  teaches  can  be  demonstrated 
by  the  history  that  for  ages  has  been  recorded  in  the  rocks 
that  make  up  the  crust  of  the  earth,  but  want  of   space 
will  not  allow  roe  to  refer  to  it  now.    What,  then,  be- 
comes of  your  harmony  and  friendship  of  the  Bible  for  sci- 
ence?   They  utterly  faU.    There  is  nothing  clearer  than 
that  the  writers  of  the  Bible  knew  nothing  of  geology,  little 
or  nothing  of  astronomy,  very  little  of  cosmogony,  nothing 
of  chemistry,  nothing  of  anthropology  and  ethnology,  very 
little  of  biology,  very  little  of  boUny,  very  little  of  zoology, 
very  little  of  meteorology,  very  little  of  mathematics,  very 
little  of  hydrostatics,  and  very  little  of  psychology.    Their 
knowledge  of  geography  was  extremely  crude  and  limited 
or  they  would  not  have  talked  so  much  about  the  ends,  the 
eomm's,  the  pillars,  and  the  foundations  of  the  earth.    What 
did  they  knovy  about  the  earth*8  being  a  round  ball;  about 
its  revolving  daily  on  its  axis  and  coursing  around  the  sun 
every  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days  T    Simply  nothing 


«t  all.  What  did  they  know  about  the  real  causes  of  day 
And  nighS  spring  and  autiimn,  summer  and  winter  ?  Noth- 
ing whatever.  An  ordinary  school-boy  ten  years  of  age 
knows  more  upon  this  subject  than  did  all  the  Bible  writers 
combined,  adding  your  God  and  Jesus  €hrist  to  Oie  number. 
Jlevelatien  has  never  brought  these  simple  truths  to  light 
Jehovah  seemed  to  know  nothing  about  them.  It  has  been 
left  to  science  to  bring  them  to  the  knowledge  of  mankind. 

Had  you  undertaken  to  show  that  the  stories  of  Robinson 
Crusoe  and  Old  Mother  Hubbard  and  her  Wonderful  Dog 
harmonize  with  science  and  are  friendly  to  it,  I  think  you 
would  have  been  more  successful.  The  first  was  written 
:by  a  man  of  far  more  intelligence  than  the  Bible  writers. 
It  contains  nothing  like  the  number  of  improbabilities  and 
impossibilities  that  the  Bible  does.  It  has  amused  and  in- 
structed millions  of  young  people  without  filling  their 
minds  with  false  representations  of  angry  gods,  malicious 
devils,  and  vindictive  torture.  Even  in  Old  Mother  Hub- 
bard, though  the  tale  of  a  dog's  dressing  in  man's  clothes 
tind  talking  is  perfectly  absurd,  it  is  no  more  so  than  an  ass 
talking  and  holding  an  argument  with  his  master.  Old 
Mother  Hubbard  and  her  dog,  equally  with  the  Bible, 
^recognized  many  of  the  arts  and  trades,  and  said  nothing 
derogatory  to  them. 

You  speak  of  Noah's  skill  in  building  the  ark,  and  of  his 
science  in  -classifying  the  animals.  The  ark  appears  to  have 
been  a  mtte  box.  or  "flat-boat."  and  did  not  require  a  vast 
amount  of  skill;  besides,  it  is  not  Just  to  give  much  credit 
of  it  to  Noah,  for  God  tdd  him  how  to  mak«  it  in  every 
particular.  Nor  can  I  see  why  Noah  should  be  credited 
with  having xjlassified  the  animals,  when  there  is  no  account 
of  his  doing  anything  of  the  kind.  According  to  the  picto* 
rial  representations  I  have  seen,  the  animals  marched 
into  the  ark  two  by  two,  like  trained  soldiers,  and  of  th«ir 
own  accord,  while  Noah  seemed  to  pay  very  little  afc- 
lenlion  to  them.    But  really,  my  friend,  do  you  attach 


.  1 


113 


THE  HUMPHBET-BEHNBTT  DISCtrSSIOK. 


THE  HUMPHKBT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


113 


much  importance  to  that  silly  "  Flood  Story"?    Do  you  re- 
gard  it  as  a  scientific  statement?    Does  it  seem  scientific  to 
you  to  pretend  that  the  atmosphere  could  support  moisture 
enough  to  rain   over  the   entire  earth  to  the  depth  of 
five  miles,  to  the  tops  of  the  highest  mountains?    If  it  did 
not  come  from  the  atmosphere,  where  did  it  come  from? 
Does  it  seem  scientific  to  say  that  two  or  three  millions  of 
animals,  birds  and  insects  voluntarily  and  simultaneously 
congregated  from  every  zone  and  continent  of  the  earth 
unto  Noah,  to  be  placed  in  the  ark?    If  they  did   not 
come  voluntarily,  what  brought  them  together?    Noah  was 
busy  building  the  ark  for  them,  and  he  could  not  attend  to 
it    Is  it  scientific  to  believe  that  animals  from  the  tropics^ 
snd  animals  from  the  frigid  zone,  and  from  all  parts  of  the 
earth,  all  of  different  natures,  could  be  shut  up  in  a  tight 
box—the  only  door  and  window  closed— and  remain  alive 
for  any  length  of  time?    Is  it  scientific  to  believe  that  the 
food  of  such  animals  as  require  fresh  meat,  fresh  fish,  fresh 
grass,  fresh  leaves,  quantities  of  worms  and  insects  of  all 
kinds,  and  even  honey,  could  be  provided  and  kept  in  the 
ark  with  all  that  aggregate  of  animal  life— some  120  animals 
and  insects  to  every  square  yard  the  ark  contained— suffi- 
cient to  last  them  more  than  a  year?  Is  it  a  scientific  suppo- 
sition that  when  the  animals  from  the  warm  countries  dis- 
tmbarked  on  the  top  of  Mt  Ararat,  said  to  be  17,000  feet 
above  the  level  of  the  sea,  and  5.000  feet  above  the  line  of 
perpetual  snow  and  frost,  they  could  live  till  they  descended 
15,000  feet  or  more,  where  the  weather  was  mild?    Is  it  sci- 
entific to  think  they  could  find  anything  to  eat  after  all  the 
animals  had  been  killed  and  every  plant  and  tree  inevitably 
destroyed  by  being  a  year  under  water?    Is  it  scientific  to 
hold  that  a  rainbow  never  appeared  until  Noah  left  the  ark 
some  four  thousand  years  ago?    Does  not  science  teach 
that  rainbows  have  been  produced  for  as  many  hundred 
thousand  years  as  there  has  been  a  sun  to  shine  upon 
descending  drc^  of  raiu?    Can  you  scientifically  account 


for  the  disappearance  of  the  water,  which  reached  to  the 
tops  of  the  highest  mountains?  Where  could  it  possibly 
have  gone  to  ? 

You  mention  the  tower  of  Babel  as  being  a  great  work 
of  science  and  architectural  skill  and  compare  it  with  the 
pyramids  of  Egypt.  There  are  pretty  good  proofs  that  the 
pyramids  were  built,  for  they  still  exist  nearly  as  good  as 
ever,  but  is  there  a  stick  or  a  stone  or  a  brick  to  show 
where  the  tower  of  Babel  stood?  Is  there  a  person  living 
who  has  any  definite  idea  where  it  stood  ?  Did  anybody 
ever  live  who  knew  anything  about  it? 

Do  you  think  it  a  scientific  statement  where  Moses  is  de- 
scribed as  having  turned  rods  into  snakes,  all  the  water  of 
Egypt — including  the  river  Nile — into  blood,  changing 
dust  into  lice,  producing  spontaneously  immense  quantities 
of  frogs,  locusts,  etc.  Is  it  a  scientific  thought  that  the 
waters  of  the  Red  Sea  separated  and  stood  up  perpen- 
dicularly like  walls  while  two  millions  of  people,  and  at 
least  as  many  cattle  passed  over  dry  shod,  and  several  hun- 
dred thousand  Egyptians  followed  in  and  were  drowned  ? 
Did  a  scientist  ever  see  water  behave  in  that  way?  Is  it  sci- 
entific to  think  that  Joshua,  Elijah  and  Elisha  were  able  to 
divide  the  rapid  Jordan  in  a  similar  manner?  Is  it  scientific 
to  think  that  a  man  could  stop  the  sun  and  moon  or  any  other 
of  'he  heavenly  bodies  ?  Is  it  scientific  to  pretend  that  Eli- 
jau  could  manufacture  meal  and  oil  from  nothing,  that  he 
could  prevent  the  fall  of  rain  and  dew  upon  the  earth  for  three 
years,  and  that  men  and  animals  and  vegetation  could  live 
after  such  a  protracted  dry  spell  ?  Is  it  scientific  to  claim  that 
he  could  call  down  fire  from  heaven  and  burn  up  stones  and 
twelve  barrels  of  water  and  over  one  hundred  men?  Is  it 
scientific  to  think  he  could  travel  up  into  the  upper  atmos- 
phere in  a  chariut  of  fire,  and  that  he  could  live  for  a  minute 
where  there  is  no  air  or  oxygen  ?  Would  a  real  scientist 
believe  that  Elisha  could  make  an  axe  float  on  the  surface 
of  the  river;  that  Samson  could  with  hia  naked  hands  tear 


114 


THE  HUMPHMT-BBHNBTT  DI8CU8SIOK. 


the  jaws  of  a  lion,  kill  one  thousand  men  at  one  time  with 
the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass,  and  finally  that  he  could,  by  laying 
hold  of  the  pillars  of  a  temple,  throw  it  to  the  ground  and 
kill  many  thousand  people?  Could  a  scientist  believe  that 
muscular  strength  could  be  produced  by  long  hair  instead 
of  well-developed  muscles  ?  Could  he  believe  that  a  fish 
could  swallow  a  man  whole,  retain  him  in  his  stomach 
three  days,  and  under  water,  without  the  man's  suffering 
for  want  of  air,  and  at  the  end  of  the  time  throw  him  up 
on  dry  ground  as  good  as  ever? 

Does  a  real  scientist  believe  that  a  ghost  could  hold  inter- 
course  with  a  young  virgin  and  beget  a  child  ?    Does  ho 
believe  that  there  is  any  mountain  in  Syria  from  the  top  of 
which  a  person  could  see  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  ? 
Does  he  believe  that  a  dead  man  was  ever  brought  back  to 
life  t    Does  he  believe  that  water  can  be  changed  into 
wine  t    Does  he  believe  that  the  light  of  the  sun  could  be 
extinguished  for  three  hours  T  that  the  graves  could  be 
opened  and  the  dead  walk  forth  and  hold  intercourse  with 
their  former  companions  ?    Does  he  believe  that  a  person 
could  make  a  trip  of  four  thousand  miles,  through  the  inter- 
nal fires  of  the  earth  to  the  centre  and  return  in  thirty-six 
hours?    (Would  it  not  have  been  pretty  warm  traveling?) 
Cou-d  a  man  who  is  a  real  scientist,  and  who  believes  in  the 
immutability  of  nature's  laws,  intelligently  believe  that  any 
of  these  things  could  take  place?    To  believe  them,  does  not 
all  scientific  knowledge  and  observation,  all  human  experi- 
ences have  to  be  set  aside,  and  a  blind  superstitious  faith 
and  credulity  substituted  in  their  place  ?    Is  not,  in  fact, 
a  belief  in  impossibilities  utterly  at  variance  with  science? 
and  can  they,  in  any  true  sense,  be  said  to  harmonize  and 
to  maintain  friendly  relations  towards  each  other  ? 

You  speak  of  Abraham's  showing  his  wonderful  surgical 
skill  in  performing  circumcision  upon  his  son  Isaac. 
Was  that  a  feat  to  brag  about  ?  Could  not  any  Hottentot 
have  done  as  much  ?    J>o«i  ll  »ot  require  far  iftpr©  skill  to 


THB  aUVPHRET-BEKNBTT  DIBOtJSSIOK. 


11^ 


put  a  ring  in  the  nose  of  a  hog  or  to  emasculate  him  ?  If 
Abraham  had  performed  the  surgical  operation  of  cutting 
bis  boy^s  head  off,  as  he  intended  to  do,  would  it  not  have 
shown  more  skill  than  cutting  off  a  little  loose  skin?  You 
claim  that  the  Hebrew  women  were  excellent  cooks  and 
bread-makers.  Do  you  allude  to  the  peculiar  cake  or  bread 
which  God  commanded  them  to  make,  mixed  with  humam 
excrement  and  cow-dung,  as  described  in  Ezekiel  iv  t  Was 
that  scientific  bread-making  ?  Is  there  the  slightest  proof 
that  the  Hebrews  cooked  any  better  or  baked  any  better 
than  the  neighboring  nations  ?  You  speak  about  the  He- 
brew wom«n  being  excellent  milliners  and  dressmakers,  and 
that  they  knew  how  to  use  cosmetics.  Have  you  any  cer- 
tificate of  this  fact  ?  I  call  for  proofs.  You  speak  of  their 
Jewelry  and  rich  apparel ;  do  you  mean  that  which  they 
stole  from  the  Egyptians?  I  think  there  is  no  special  ac- 
count of  their  making  any  jewelry,  but  they  were  adepts  at 
stealing,  robbing,  and  murdering,  invariably  taking  the 
jewelry  and  other  valuables  from  their  victims.  About  the 
greatest  feat  in  the  jewelry  line  mentioned  in  the  Bible  is 
where  the  priest  Aaron,  while  Moses  was  up  on  the  moun* 
tain  helping  God  to  get  up  the  Ten  Commandments,  took 
the  jewelry  that  had  been  stolen  from  other  people  and 
melted  it  together  and  made  a  golden  calf  for  the  Israelite 
to  worship  as  a  god.    Did  that  require  much  science  ? 

You  quote  Job  to  show  how  much  the  Israelites  knew 
about  astronomy;  but  are  you  not  aware  that  the  best  He- 
brew scholars  have  long  since  decided  that  that  book  was  not 
written  by  a  Hebrew  but  was  probably  borrowed  from  the 
Chaldeans  or  the  Edomites  ?  The  fact  that  not  a  person  or 
place  is  mentioned  in  it  that  is  spoken  of  in  any  other  part 
of  the  Bible  goes  far  to  confirm  this  opinion.  It  is  not 
Hebrew  in  style  or  character,  and  neither  mentions  any 
other  part  of  the  Bible  nor  does  any  other  part  mention  it 
As  that  is  the  only  instance  where  the  least  astronomical 
knowledge  is  indicated  in  the.  book  it  hardly  proves  the 


116 


THB  HUMPHBET-BlENinBTT  DlflCUBSIOir. 


Jews  to  haye  been  astronomers.  All  tbey  knew  of  the 
itars  was  from  observation;  tbey  bad  no  knowledge  of 
calculation  in  tbat  direction— tbey  knew  nothing  about  cal- 
culating eclipses,  transits,  etc. 

You  claim  the  Israelites  as  "  superior  musicians."  I  can- 
not admit  it.  Tbey  doubtless  bad  several  crude  instru- 
ments, and  were  able  to  play  tbem  promiscuously,  and 
"make  a  Joyful  noise,"  as  David  called  It,  but  tbey  knew 
nothing  of  harmony,  without  which  there  can  be  no  real 
music.  Oriental  nations  have  never  known  anything 
about  harmony,  nor  do  tbey  to  this  day.  It  is  only  within 
the  last  two  or  three  centuries  that  the  world  has  known 
anything  about  harmony,  the  knowledge  of  which  was  per- 
fected in  Europe.  The  Orientals  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
Are  you  sure  the  Israelites  played  on  **  a  harp  of  a  thou- 
sand strings"?  Will  you  please  point  out  the  part  of  the 
Bible  tbat  mentions  such  an  instrument  ?  Have  you  not 
got  your  Bible  a  trifle  confounded  with  the  Hard-Shell  Baptist 
who  preached  in  the  Southwest,  taking  for  a  text,  "And 
they  shall  gnaw  a  file,  and  flee  unto  the  mountains  of  Hep- 
aidam,  where  the  lion  roareth  and  the  whang-doodle 
mourneth  for  her  first-bom;  and  he  played  on  a  harp  of  a 
thousand  strings— sperits  of  Just  men  made  perfect"?  Is 
tbat  not  the  only  instance  on  record  where  anything  is  said 
about  the  thousand-stringed  harp  ? 

Tou  boast  of  the  architectural  skill  of  the  Israelites. 
You  have  little  grounds  for  it.  They  lived  in  tents,  and 
knew  very  little  about  houses.  Their  tabemade  was  only  a 
tent.  It  is  thought  by  many  that  Solomon's  wonderful 
Temple  was  a  myth,  that  it  never  had  an  existence;  but  if 
the  Bible  story  is  credited,  it  is  evident  that  the  Hebrews  had 
not  skill  enough  to  erect  it,  for  they  were  obliged  to  send 
for  thousands  of  skilled  workmen  from  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
Palestine  presents  no  relics  of  ancient  architectural  grand- 
eur. I  have  it  from  a  friend  who  has  made  four  different 
JouneyB  to  Paltstinf,  ai^4  who  baa  b«en  over  every  square 


THB  HUKPHBBT-BBNKETT  DISCUSSION, 


117 


mile  of  that  country,  that  there  is  not  in  the  entire  length 
and  breadth  of  the  "  Holy  Land"  a  stone,  a  monument,  a 
Hebrew  inscription,  or  anything  of  the  kind,  to  prove  that 
a  numerous  and  civilized  people  lived  there  three  thousand 
years  ago ;  while  in  other  parts  of  Syria,  in  Chaldea,  Asia 
Minor,  Phoenicia,  Egypt,  Greece,  Cypress,  and  Rome,  the 
remains  of  ancient  grandeur  are  often  met  with/  In  the 
Metropolitan  Museum  on  Fourteenth  street,  in  this  city, 
there  are  some  twenty  thousand  specimens  of  ancient  work* 
manship  in  earthen- ware,  pottery,  etc.,  principally  brought 
from  Cypress,  but  among  them  all,  not  one  specimen  of  He- 
brew manufacture.  Probably  there  is  nothing  in  existence 
to-day,  in  the  whole  world,  to  show  there  was  such  a  nation, 
save  less  than  half  a  dozen  coins,  and  the  genuineness  of 
these  is  disputed. 

You  say  every  Jew  was  required  to  learn  some  substan- 
tial trade.  But  what  kind  of  trades  were  they?  Tent- 
making,  pasturing  cattle,  sandal-making,  etc.  Nothing 
showing  a  high  order  of  civilization.  In  chronology  they 
were  deficient.  Their  calendar  was  inferior  to  Cssar^s  and 
Gregory's.  Their  months  depended  upon  the  moon  and 
were  ever  changing.  It  cannot  be  tra«||d  with  precision 
like  the  calendars  of  Cflesar  and  Gregory.  They  never  had 
a  commerce  that  amounted  to  anything,  and  the  ships  of 
Palestine  never  made  much  show  upon  the  oceans  of  the 
world.  They  were  a  pastoral  people,  whose  country  con- 
tained scarcely  twelve  thousand  square  miles — about  the 
size  of  New  Hampshire — and  half  of  it  consisted  of  moun- 
tains, ravines,  lakes,  etc.,  which  could  hardly  be  cultivated, 
and  they  never  were  a  powerful  nation,  nor  were  they  ever 
far  advanced  in  arts,  science  and  cizilization.  It  is  a  notice, 
able  fact  that  though  the  Greek  historian,  Herodotus— prob- 
ably the  most  correct  of  ancient  historians — who  twice  made 
a  journey  through  Syria.  Phoenicia,  etc. ,  never  mentioned 
the  Hebrew  nation,  and  this  nearly  five  hundred  years  be- 
fore the  Christian  era.    Tbey  were  a  natien  or  a  race  of 


■*-<■ 


118 


THE  HUlfPHKBY-BBNKBTT  DlSCtrSSIOS. 


THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


rd 


I 


shepherds,  too  obscure  to  attract   his  attention  or  to  be 
worthy  of  mention  in  his  writings. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  Jewish  history  is  very  much  ex- 
aggerated, that  there  never  was  as  large  a  population  in  that 
country  as  represented.  It  would  be  wholly  unable  to  sup- 
port such  a  population.  The  impossibility  of  this  can  be 
▼ery  readily  seen  by  a  little  calculation.  To  turn  out  an 
army  of  one  million  fighting  men— and  this  number  it 
must  haye  had  at  least,  to  lose  500,000  in  a  single  day— it 
must  have  had  a  population  of  five  or  six  millions— many 
times  denser  than  Belgium,  the  most  populous  country  of 
Europe,  and  chiefly  a  level  and  fertile  country,  with  but 
little  waste  land.  It  would  be  utterly  impossible  for  such  a 
diminutive,  broken  country  as  Palestine  to  sustain  any  such 
number  of  people. 

There  is  but  little  ground  for  making  a  great  man  of 
Solomon.  He  was  probably  a  myth  ;  but,  according  to 
the  Bible,  he  was  more  remarkable  for  sensuality  than  for 
any  scientific  qualities.  He  knew  very  little  about  the  sci- 
ences. The  Proverbs  accredited  to  him  were  the  collections 
of  ages  and  from  various  nations.  There  is  no  proof  that 
he  wrote  one  of  them,  and  if  the  '*  Song  "  in  the  Bible  that  is 
called  by  his  name  is  a  fair  specimen  of  his  "  thousand  and 
five  *'  songs  you  allude  to,  it  is  very  wS  that  they  have  not 
come  down  to  our  time.  They  would  do  him  no  credit, 
and  nobody  any  good.  He  assuredly  was  an  inferior  Tup- 
per,  a  very  poor  LlnnsBUS,  a  weak  Audubon,  a  puerile 
Cuvier,  and  a  mean  apology  for  an  Agassiz. 

Does  the  fact  that  *'  Jesus  wept  '*  prove  him  to  have  been 
a  scientist  ?  Weeping  was  in  his  line.  Sven  if  he  had  a 
presentiment  that  Jerusalem  would  be  destroyed,  did  that 
make  him  a  scientist?  Is  there  proof  that  he  attended  any 
institution  of  learning;  that  he  studied  the  sciences,  or  knew 
anything  of  them?  The  mention  of  his  talking  with  the 
doctors  in  the  temple  when  twelve  years  of  age  is  but  a  trif- 
ling incident  in  acai«<^  jpf  thirty  yfan^  of  which  nothing 


whatever  is  known.  Did  it  show  him  to  be  a  m  m  of  .<  ci- 
ence  to  look  for  fruit  upon  a  fig-tree  in  the  part  of  Ibe  year 
when  those  trees  do  not  bear  fruit,  and  to  get  angry  an^ 
curse  the  tree  because  he  was  disappointed  ?  Your  effort 
to  make  a  scientist  of  Jesus  I  regard  an  utter  failure. 

What  if  Paul  did  visit  Athens  and  look  upon  the  temple 
of  Diana  and  found  it  far  more  splendid  than  anything  be 
ever  saw  in  Palestine;  did  that  make  him  a  scientist?  Could 
not  an  Esquimaux  equally  as  well  look  upon  the  Capitol  at 
Washington,  the  Croton  aquc  Juct  at  High  Bridge  or  upon 
our  East  River  Suspension  Bridge  without  being  a  scientist? 
[t  is  very  doubtful  whether  he  ever  visited  Home.  In  the  last 
chapter  of  Acts  it  says  he  did,  but  afterwards,  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Romans,  he  talks  as  though  he  was  very  anxious 
to  visit  Rome,  but  says  nothing  about  his  having  done  so, 
nor  does  it  afterwards  state  that  he  ever  visited  the  *'  City  of 
Seven  Hills ;"  but  be  that  as  it  may,  he  was  a  very  small  part 
of  a  scientist,  and  taught  very  few  scientific  truths.    The 
only  time  he  used  the  word  science,  he  called  it  false.    He 
was  great  in  extolling  the  virtues  of  faith  and  blind  credu- 
lity, and  had  literally  nothing  to  say  upon  scientific  sub- 
jects.   Like  his  master,  he  was  dogmatic,  dealt  in  parables, 
enigmas  and  absurdities,  and  knew  little  or  nothing  of 
■cience.    His  positive  assertion  that  he  *'  was  determined 
not  to  know  anything  save  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified," 
decides  forever  just  how  much  of  a  scientist  he  was.    A 
man  favorable  to  scientific  investigation  would  never  thus 
declare  himself.    Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  were 
equally  scientific  /    Faith  with  all  of  them  was  the  sine  qua 
non;  science  was  tabooed.    Perhaps  the  nearest  that  Peter 
ever  came  to  being  scientific  and  dexterous  was  when  he 
so  neatly  took  off  the  ear  of  Malchus,  the  servant  of  the 
high  priest,  with  his  sword.    It  seems,  however,  you  did 
not  deem  it  of  sufficient  consequence  to  mention  it,  though 
it  was   certainly  equal  to  Abraham's   surgery.     Perhaps 
Jesus  performed  the  scientific  part  of  the  operation  when  he 


120 


TBM  HTJMPHRBT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


ri 


m 


11 

ii'i 


I 


tottclied  the  place  where  the  ear  had  been  and  healed  it,  but 
whether  by  bringing  out  a  new  ear  is  not  stated.  What 
business  Peter,  the  "Rock"  on  which  the  Church  is  built, 
a  disciple  of  Jesus  and  key-holder  of  the  gate  of  heayen, 
had  with  a  sword  is  not  scientificaUy  explained. 

I  am  sorry,  my  friend,  that  I  cannot  find  as  much  science 
in  the  Bible  and  among  its  authors  as  you  do,  but  perhaps  I 
am  unfortunate  to  that  extent.  It  is  probable  that  we  look 
through  different  lenses. 

Yours  very  truly,  D.  M.  Bennett. 


MR.     HUMPHRET. 

Ma.  D.  31.  Bennett,  Dear  Sir:  As  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
you  are  welcome  to  call  such  men  as  Judge  Story  '*  petti- 
foggers,** and,  in  the  face  of  three  standard  biographers,  to 
deny  that  Lincoln  said  *' Christ  is  God.'*  My  cause  can 
afford  better  than  yours  to  let  you  ignore  authorities  in  thai 
summary  way. 

You  assume  that  a  belief  in  the  supernatural  is  unscien- 
tific. That  is  begging  the  question.  For  the  present,  suffico 
it  to  say  that  the  men  who  have  done  the  most  for  science 
have  been  believers  in  the  possibility,  reasonableness,  and 
historical  reality  of  miracles.   This  we  shall  show  farther  on. 

I  wrote  my  last  letter  with  precipitate  haste,  just  before 
going  to  the  country.  That  will  account  for  my  inadvert. 
ence  when  I  said  the  Jewish  musicians  played  on  "  harps  of 
a  thousand  strings.*'  Of  course,  I  am  liable  to  make  mis- 
takes. But  that  I  should  even  commit  to  writing  this  mistake 
is  rather  strange.  A  few  evenings  before,  I  had  been  ridi- 
culing that  very  **  harp.**  Well,  I  shall  have  to  come  down 
nine  hundred  and  ninety  strings.  I  should  have  said, 
** Instruments  of  ten  strings**  (Pss.  83:2;  92:8;  144:9).  I 
■tand  corrected.    Thank  yo«^ 


j|i 


TBB  HUMFRBET'-BENNBTT  DISCUSSION, 


121 


It  is  my  turn  now.  Your  letter  is  rich  in  materials  for 
retaliation.  You  fall  into  quite  a  number  of  rather  serious 
errors: 

Error  first:  "Nor  does  any  other  part  mention  it**  (the 
book  of  Job).  Job  is  mentioned  four  times  in  the  Bible 
(Ez.  xiv:  14.  16,  20;  James  v,  ii),  and  once  in  the  Apocrypha 
(Tob.  ii:12)  Neither  is.it  true  that  "the  best  Hebrew 
scholars  have  long  since  decided  that  that  book  was  not 
written  by  a  Hebrew.'*  Such  critics  as  Kennicott,  Etch- 
horn,  Michaelis,  Bathe,  Luther,  Grotius,  Doederlin,  Um- 
breit,  Eosenmtlller.  Keimar,  Spanheim,  Warburton,  Hilzig, 
Hirzel,  Delilzsch,  Evans,  Lange,  etc.,  etc.,  etc.,  are  of  the 
opinion  that  its  author  was  a  Jew.  The  name  Job  is  Jew- 
ish (Gen.  xlvi:13).  But  granting  that  it  is  the  work  of  a 
Gentile,  the  reception  of  the  book  into  the  Scriptures  proves 
that  the  Israelites  could  appreciate  its  contents. 

Mhrror  tecand  :  "  The  only  time  he  used  the  word  science, 
he  called  it  false/*  On  the  contrary,  Paul  used  the  word 
gndsis,  translated  "science,**  in  1  Tim.  vi:20,  about  twenty 
times  in  his  Epistles  (Englishman's  Greek  Concordance). 
It  was  not  PauPs  fault  that  this  word  was  not  uniformly 
rendered  **  science'*  in  the  English  version,  as  it  was  gener- 
ally in  the  Vulgate  and  in  Leusden's  Latin  Testament. 
Neither  did  Paul  call  Bcience  false.  There  is  a  vast  difference 
between  declaring  that  science  is  false  and  saying  that  there 
is  a  false  *'  science."  It  was  only  the  latter  that  the  Apostle 
denounced. 

Error  third:  "  They  lived  in  tents,  and  knew  very  little 
about  houses.  **  How  opposite  to  the  facts  I  "  Houses  "  and 
**  palaces,"  **  winter  houses  and  summer  houses,"  built  of 
•'hewn  stone,"  and  "cedar,"  and  "ivory,"  containing 
•*  parlours,**  "painted  with  vermilion,"  were  no  rare  things 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews  (See  Jud.  iii:20;  Jer.  xxii:14; 

Amosiii:l5). 

Error  fourth :  "  They  stole  from  the  Egyptians.**  "  Stole 
is  not  the  word  employed  by  Moses,  but  "borrowed**  (Ex. 


9» 


r  : 


I 


I 

■■I 


llfu 


TBB  HUMPHBXY-BBNKBTT  DISCUSSION. 

iii :  22,  xii :  81-36).  Amang  their  first  definitions  of  tAooZ,  the 
original  word  for  "borrowed,"  FUret  and  Gesenius  give  "  te 
«8k  prcssingly;  to  ask  for;  to  demand  urgently;  to  beg  Tery 
urgently;  to  ask  for  one's  self."  Stealing  is  an  idea  entirely 
foreign  to  the  word. 

Error  fifth :  •'  He  was  great  in  extolling  the  virtues  oifaUk 
and  blind  credulity."  As  regar4s  faith,  that  is  true;  but  as 
regards '  *  blind  credulity,"  it  is  utterly  f idse.  Scriptural  faith 
and  *'  blind  credulity  "  are  as  different  as  light  and  dark- 
ness. Paul  disclaimed  and  disdained  the  latter.  He  rebuked 
even  the  scientific  Athenians  for  being  "  too  superstitious'* 
(Acts  xvii: 22).  He  prayed  for  deliverance  **  from  wM^ai<m- 
Me  men  "  (2  Thes,  iii:  2)  He  regarded  Religion  as  a  "  r««t- 
^mdble,''  or,  strictly  speaking,  a  "  logioal  service  "  {Or,  logihin 
iatreian,  Rom.  xli:  1).  He  reoioned  of  righteousness,  temper- 
ance, and  judgment  to  come,  until  the  Infidel  Felix  trembled 
before  him  <Acts  xxiv :  26). 

You  say  Solomon  was  "  remarkable  for  his  sensuality."  It 
is  tree  that  he  fell  into  that  grievous  sin ;  and  the  Bible 
condemns  him  for  It  (1  Kings  chap.  xi).  But  the  modern 
Freethinkers,  who  regard  themselves  as  preeminently  **  pro- 
gressive" and"  advanced,"  are  the  very  ones  who^*w««/jr 
^md  defend  "remarkable  sensuality."  I  refer  to  the  doc- 
trine of  "Free-Love," which  is  by  interpretation,  Free-Lust 
I  am  glad,  Mr.  Bennett,  to  see  you  uniting  with  the  Bible 
to  denounce  an  abomination  which  "  advanced  "  Infidelity 
is  doing  its  utmost  to  propagate. 

You  assert  that  the  ancient  Jews  were  "  crude  "  musicians. 
Of  course,  they  were  inferior  to  the  modern  masters;  but 
they  were  unexcelled  in  their  tfane.  They  could  "siag 
praises  mih  (He  understtinding "  (Ps.  47: 7;  1  Cor.  xiv:  16);  and 
they  knew  how  to  "  make  meet  mebdy'^  (Is.  xxiii:  16;  Amos 
▼:  28;  Bph.  v:  ID).  "  Crude  '*  music  does  not  have  the  sooth- 
ing effect  that  David*s  harp  did  on  the  agitated  Saul  (1  Sam. 

xvi:2S). 
Yoa  say  then  wis  nothing  among  the  ancient  Jews 


THB  HUMPHREY  -  BBNNKTT  PISCUSSION. 


123 


'•showing  a  high  order  of  civilization."  Even  Rationalists, 
like  DeWette,  in  his  Lehrbuch  der  Archftologie,  and  Jahn, 
in  his  Biblical  Archaeology,  express  a  very  different  opinion, 
But  I  cannot  stop  to  expose  all  your  misrepresentations. 
What  I  have  given  is  enough  to  show  how  fair,  accurate^ 
afi4  reliable  you  are  as  an  expounder  of  the  Scriptures  I  Let 
me.  however,  furnish  you  with  the  proofs  you  call  for,  that 
the  Hebrew  women  were  excellent  dressmakers  and  milli- 
ners, and  that  they  knew  how  to  use  cosmetics.  Read  Is. 
ili:16-24;  Jer.  iv:30;  Ez.  xxiii:40,  and  you  wiU  doubtless  be 

convinced 

The  Bible  does  not  pretend  to  be  a  text-book  of  science. 
And  this  is  no  discredit  to  it.  You  do  not  condemn  a  work 
on  moral  philosophy,  because  it  is  not  a  treatise  on  mathe- 
matics.  It  is  the  mission  of  the  Bible  to  teach  moral  and 
spiritual  truth.  Its  references  to  physical  science  are  there- 
fore only  Incidental.  I  showed  in  my  last  letter  that  those 
references  are  always  respectful  and  approving. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  prove  that  believers  in  the  Bible 
have  done  more  than  unbelievers  to  promote  learning  and 

science. 

This  is  shown,  in  the  first  place,  by  the  fact  that  the  best 
Educational  Institutions  of  the  worid  have  been  almost 
uniformly  founded,  endowed,  and  cherished  by  Christian 
people.  There  are  over  thirty  Universities  in  Germany. 
Every  one  of  them  Is  under  either  Catholic,  Lutheran,  Evan- 
gelical, or  their  united  control.  '  *  The  motives  which  prompt- 
ed these  great  establishments  were  without  exception,  pure 
and  elevated,  and  generally  pious  and  Chrijtian  "  (Schaff»s 
Germany  and  its  Universities,  pp.  29-32).  The  same  is  true 
of  another  country  famous  for  its  higher  education.  There 
iB  not  one  University  in  all  France  that  Its  Infidels  have 
brought  Into  existence.  Should  you  feel  like  contradicting 
this  statement,  please  name  the  University,  with  your 
authority.  The  University  of  Paris  was  founded  by  the 
approbation  of  Pope  Innocent  IIL   (Barnard's   Systems, 


184 


THE  HUMPHREY    BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


■nil" 


Institutions,  and  Statistics  of  Public  Instruction  in  Blffer- 
ent  Countries.  N.  Y..  1872,  p.  198).  This  institution  was 
suppressed  by  the  Infidels  in  the  riot  of  1793  (Am.  Cyclope- 
dia, 1876,  Art.  "University").  The  higher  schools  of 
France  were  at  first  religious  (Ibid).  So  of  England.  The 
American  Cyclopedia  will  tell  you  that  Cambridge  Univers- 
ity was  originally  a  religious  center;  that  the  Colleges  consti- 
tuting it  were  founded  by  Cliristian  gentlemen  whose  names 
they  bear;  that  it  was  befriei^ed  by  Henry  III.,  Henry  IV., 
Henry  V.,  Henry  VII. ,  by  Edward  I.,  Edward  11. ,  Edward 
IIL,  Edward  IV.,  and  by  Queen  Elizabeth.  And  these  sov 
ereigns  were  all,  according  to  Hume,  believers  in  the  Chris- 
tian Religion.  I  cannot  find  the  name  of  an  Infidel  in  con- 
nection with  its  foundation,  endowment,  or  with  the  furnish- 
ing of  its  Cabinets  and  Libraries,  Did  space  permit,  I  couU 
thow  you  similar  accounts  of  every  University  in  England. 
Ireland,  Scotland  and  Wales.  You  may  find  the  records  in 
Cyclopedias,  Histories,  and  Beports  that  are  always  accessi- 
ble. 

Cross  over  to  the  United  States,  and  the  same  is  true  here. 
Josiah  Quincy,  in  his  admirable  History  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity, shows  that  the  originators  of  that  institution  were 
all  church  people,  and  mostly  ministers;  that  its  first  and 
best  friend,  John  Harvard,  was  a  preacher;  that  its  Presi- 
dents  were  an  unbroken  succession  of  clergymen  for  nearly 
two  hundred  years;  and  that  ite  professors  and  benefactors 
were  Christians  in  about  the  same  proportion.  Our  other 
universities  and  colleges,  such  as  Yale,  Brown,  New  York, 
Cornell,  Bowdoin,  Amherst,  Dartmouth,  Columbia,  Rut- 
gers, Union,  Lafayette,  Oberlin,  Princeton,  Washington 
and  Jefferson,  etc.,  etc.,  owe  their  very  being  to  religious 
men.  Only  think  of  it  I  Where  would  the  worid  be  to-day 
without  the  universities,  colleges,  academies,  seminaries, 
and  schools,  that  Christianity  has  created  and  supported  T 
It  would  be  in  worse  than  Egyptian  darkness. 

The  Public  Schools  of  Europe  and  America  are  the  pro- 


THB  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


125 


7 


duct  Of  Christianity.    In  Europe  religion  is  everywhere 
blended  with  secular  instruction  (See  Barnard's  Systems, 
Institutions,  Statistics,  etc.).    The  prime   movers  of  the 
•*  National  Society  for  promoting  the  Education  of  the  Poor 
in  England"  were  Christian  benefactors,  chiefly  clergymen 
(0'Malley*s  Sketch  of  the  State  of  Popular  Education,  1840). 
The  American  Public  School  sprung  up  first  in  New  Eng- 
land.   Its  religious  character  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
Testament  was  a  reader  in  it  for  many  years.    Webster's 
Speller  and  Grammar  were  among  the  first  of  American  school 
books.    But  Noah  Webster  was  a  devout  church  member 
(See  his  Memoir  in  his  Unabridged  Dictionary).    The  ma- 
jority of  school  books  ever  since  have  been  prepared  by 
religious  scholars  and  educators.    We  may  safely  say  that 
more  than  eighty  per  cent,  of  the  teachers  in  our  common 
schools  are  church  members.    I  read  not  long  ago.  in  an 
educational  journal,  that  there   are   seventeen   thousand 
schools  in  Pennsylvania,  and  that  the  Bible  is  read  in  four- 
teen thousand  of  them.   Thus,  the  feeling  stUl  predominates 
that  the  State  should  not  utterly  ignore  moral  instruction. 
In  earlier  days  this  feeling  was  more  pronounced  than  it  is 
now.    Gov.  George  Clinton  of  New  York  wrote  to  the  Leg- 
islature in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century:  **The  ad- 
vantage to  mardU,  religion,  liberty,  and  good  government, 
arising  from  the  general  diffusion  of  knowledge,  being  uni- 
versally admitted,  permit  me  to  recommend  this  subject 
(common   schools)   to   your   deliberate   attention."    Gov. 
Lewis  and  Gov.  Tompkins  gave  utterance  still  later  to  sim- 
ilar sentiments  (Cheever's  Bible  in  our  Common  Schools,  N. 
Y.  1859,  pp.    201-4).    Oar  facilities,   then,    for   popular 
education  are  to  be  accredited  to  men  who  were  not  ashamed 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.    Why,  Sir,  if  we  had  to  depend  on 
Infidelity  for  it,  we  would  be  without  a  respectable  diction- 
ary of  the  English  language.    Johnson,  Webster,  and  Wor- 
cester (see  Memoir  in  his  Dictionary),  were  firm  believers  in 
the  Word  of  God.    And  what  would  we  be  without  a  die- 


li 


136 


THE   HUJfrHRET-BENNETT  DISCCBSIOW. 


V 


-••I 


Uh. 


.Mi 


tioDafj  f    In  other  #irig,  what  woald  we  know  if  we  hid 
nothing  but  Infidelity  to  teach  U8 1 

A  like  account  may  be  given  of  the  world's  greatest 
Museums  and  Libraries.  The  first  circulating  library 
was  established  in  Cesarea,  about  809  a.  d.,  by  Saint 
Pamphilus  (Curwen's  History  of  Book-sellers,  p.  422). 
Sir  Hans  Sloane  may  be  called  the  founder  of  the 
British  Museum.  But  Sir  Hans  Sloane  was  no  Infidel 
(Encyclopedia  Britannica).  Those  who  bequeathed  their 
private  libraries  to  the  libraries  of  Oxford,  Cambridge, 
Yale,  Harrard,  etc.,  etc.,  will  invariably  be  found  to  have 
been  Christians,  and  very  often  clergymen.  Let  us  look  at 
the  matter  nearer  home.  The  founders  of  the  **  New  York 
Historical  Society "  were  godly  men.  We  find  the  names 
of  Bishop  Moore,  Rev.  Samuel  Miller,  D.D.,  Dr.  John  W. 
Francis,  etc,  among  its  first  and  highest  officers.  There 
was  not  one  skeptic  among  the  organizers  of  the  Boston 
Athenteum  (see  Josiah  Quincy*8  History  oO-  John  Jacob 
Astor,  the  founder  of  the  magnificent  library  that  bears  his 
name,  was  a  life-long  church  member  (Parton's  Famoui 
Americans,  p.  435).  Peter  Cooper  is  a  Unitarian,  accepting 
the  Bible  as  the  inspired  word  of  God.  I  have  not  been  abid 
to  find  anything  very  positive  about  the  religious  opinions  of 
James  Smithson,  the  originator  of  the  Smithsonian  Institu- 
tioo  in  Washington.  But  the  current  sketches  of  his  life 
contain  many  circumstantial  evidences  of  his  subscription 
to  the  Christian  system.  Where  are  the  public  museums  of 
art  and  science,  the  libraries  and  institutes,  that  Infidels 
have  established  f  Ah,  my  friend,  they  are  almost  as  few 
and  far  between  as  you  would  say  that  angel  visits  are. 

Did  you  ever  observe,  in  reading  the  lives  of  our 
Revolutionary  heroes  and  statesmen,  how  that  nearly  all  of 
them  received  their  education  from  Christian  clergymen  t 
Where  would  they  have  been  without  an  education  ?  But 
what  of  their  education,  if  they  had  been  obliged  to  seek  it 
from  Infidel  teachers  and  professors  t 


I 


i; 


TKB  HUUPHRBT-llBNNETr  DISCtTSSIOIf. 


itn 


The  greatest  discoverers,  inventors,  and  literati  have  been 
believers  in  the  Bible  as  a  Divine  revelation.  I  can  name  but 
a  very  few  of  them.  Among  them  I  will  mention  Coper- 
nicus, the  reviver  of  the  heliocentric  theory;  Galileo,  the 
inventor  of  the  telescope ;  Isaac  Newton,  the  greatest  of 
philosophical  discoverers;  Bacon,  who  introduced  the  in- 
ductive method;  Descartes,  the  prince  of  metaphysicians; 
Leibnitz,  the  rival  of  Newton;  Columbus,  the  discoverer  of 
America;  Kapler,  the  formulator  of  **  Kepler*s  laws;"  Pas- 
cal, that  prodigy  of  profoundness;  Jenner.  the  discoverer  of 
vaccination ;  Harvey,  the  discoverer  of  the  circulation  of 
the  blood;  Sir  William  Jones,  the  Sanscrit  scholar;  Adam 
Smith,  the  unrivaled  political  economist;  Dr.  Priestley,  the 
discoverer  of  oxygen  gas;  George  Stephenson,  the  perfecter 
of  the  steam-engine;  Smeaton,  the  builder  of  the  Eddystone 
Lighthouse ;  the  Duke  of  Bridgewater,  the  first  English 
canal  constructor;  Christopher  Wren,  the  architect  of  St. 
Paul's;  William  Edwards,  the  "rainbow"  bridge-builder; 
Sir  Humphrey  Davy,  the  chemist,  and  inventor  of  the 
Safety  Lamp  (Works,  London,  1839,  vol.  i.  pp.  114,  431; 
▼ol.  iz.  pp.  214-388) ;  Robert  Fulton,  the  first  steamboat 
Imilder  (Golden's  Life  of  Fulton  pp.  254,  281,  369,  371); 
Prof.  8.  F.  B.  Morse,  the  inventor  of  the  electric  telegraph 
(Prime's  Life  of  Morse,  N.  Y.,  1875,  pp.  730-7);  Cuvier,  the 
comparative  anatomist  (Lee*s  Memoirs,  London,  1830,  pp. 
10,  85,  318,  327) ;  Audubon,  the  ornithologist ;  Faraday, 
Tyndairs  teacher  (Gladstone's  Life  of  Faraday  pp.  118-122); 
Sir  David  Brewster,  the  versatile  scientist;  the  Herschels,  a 
family  of  astronomers;  Chatham,  Brougham,  Burke,  Henry, 
Webster,  Clay,  the  orators ;  Blackstone,  Kent,  Hale,  Coke, 
Story,  the  jurists;  the  poets  Chaucer,  Spencer,  Dante,  Dry- 
den,  Gray,  Wordsworth,  Young,  Thomson,  Pollock,  Milton 
and  Shakspeare  (see  Halii well's  Life  of  Shakspeare,  pp.  33, 
270-289,  and  Wilkes'  Shakspeare  from  an  American  Point 
of  View,  N.  Y.  1877,  chap,  vi.);  Mozart,  Haydn,  Han- 
del, Mendelssohn,  Bach,  Beethoven,  Liszt,  the  musicians; 


M^ 


us 


THE  HTMPaRET-BEKNETT  DIBCUttSION, 


'Mil 


Da  Vinci,  Correggio,  Carracci,  Raphael,  Angelo,  West,  the 
artists;  RdtwUusoo,  Lepsius,  Layard,  the  antiquarians;  Wil- 
berforce  and  Howard,  the  philanthropists.  Bat  I  might 
as  well  stop,  as  it  will  be  impossible  to  finish  the  list.  The 
names  of  Cullen,  Hugh  Miller,  Count  Rumford,  Sir  Roderick 
Murchison,  Ferguson,  Liebig,  Leyden,  Prof.  Dana,  Prof. 
Silliman,  Prof.  Henry,  Dr.  McCosh,  Principal  Dawson,  Dr. 
Livingstone,  Agassiz,  (Jen.  Newton,  Winchell,  Mitchell, 
Guyot,  Guizot,  Noah  Porter,  Duke  of  Argyll,  Gladstone, 
etc.,  etc.,  are  already  in  the  reader's  mind. 

Now,  I  ask,  where  would  art  and  science  be  without  the 
discoveries  and  inventions  of  those  whom  I  have  men« 
tioned  ?  Had  we  nothing  to-day  but  such  original  contribu- 
tions to  scientific  knowledge  as  Infidels  have  made,  we 
would  have  scarcely  anything  but  barbarism.  We  would 
be  without  our  best  music,  our  best  poetry,  and  our  best 
art  We  would  have  no  astronomy,  no  steam  power,  no 
telegraph,  no  America.  Even  now,  with  every  advantage 
and  incentive.  Infidels  are  in  the  rear  as  scientists.  I  have 
looked  quite  carefully  over  the  "Annual  Record  of  Science 
and  Industry,"  for  the  last  six  years,  and  I  fail  to  find  that 
the  men  who  talk  the  most  about  science,  have  made  any 
contributions  to  it.  There  is  the  Banner  of  Light,  editor  and 
contributors  ;  Ths  Bdigio-PMlosophical  Journal,  editor  and 
contributors;  Ths  Boston  Investigator,  editor  and  contributors; 
2%e  Orudhle,  editor  and  contributors ;  WoodhuU  d  ClaffiUfC9 
Weekly,  editress  (?)  and  contributors  ;  The  Index,  editor  and 
contributors ;  and,  let  me  add.  The  Tbuth  Sbekbb,  ed- 
itor and  contribntors^^ne  might  imagine  from  their  loud 
talk  that  they  were  scientists  par  excellence,  and  that  they 
contributed  immensely  to  its  progress!  But,  alasl  when  we 
come  to  examine  the  records  of  what  has  been  actually 
done,  and  who  has  done  it,  it  does  not  appear  that  they 
have  done  anything  whatever  I 

The  leading  Publishers  of  the  world  have  been  generally 
believers  in  the  Christian  Religion.    The  earliest  and  foro- 


"THB  mniPHRET-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


12d 


most  booksellers  and  publishers  of  England  have  been 
friends  and  members  of  the  Church  (see  Curwen's  History 
of  Booksellers,  London,  1873).  Quite  significantly,  Pater- 
noster—i.  e.  the  Lord's  Prayer— Row,  in  London,  was  the 
first  to  become  famous  for  its  book  trade.  The  pioneers  of 
the  publishing  business  in  America— Usher,  Ranger,  Avery, 
Phillips,  Ratcliffe,  Sewall,  etc.— were  men  of  faith  (Thomas' 
History  of  Printing,  vol.  ii.  pp.  409-412).  I  presume  that 
what  is  true  of  New  York  is  true  of  any  large  city  in  this 
respect.  The  religious  character  of  the  New  York  book- 
sellers  and  publishers  is  reflected  in  their  resolutions  on 
the  death  of  Mr.  Fletcher  Harper,  where  you  will  find 
the  following  sentence:  "For  all  that  he  was  as  a  man 
and  a  Christian,  for  all  that  he  was  permitted  to  accomplish 
in  the  interest  of  literature  and  education,  we  would  render 
thanks  to  Almighty  God''  {New  Y<yrk  Herald,  May  31, 1877). 

O,  yes;  I  must  mention  the  art  of  printing.  That,  too, 
was  the  offspring  of  Christian  genius.  Guttenburg,  the  in- 
ventor of  printing,  was  a  Roman  Catholic  (Thomas'  History 
of  Printing,  Vol.  I.  p.  113).  The  first  important  book  ever 
printed  was  the  Latin  Bible.  William  Caxton,  the  first  En- 
glish printer,  lived  and  died  in  the  Church  (Ibid.  p.  135). 
America  is  indebted  for  its  first  press  to  the  Rev.  Jesse 
Glover,  a  Nonconformist  minister  (Thomas'  History  of  Print- 
ing, Vol.  I.  p.  205).  What  would  the  world  be  without  the 
printing-press?  When  you  give  a  correct  answer  to  that 
question,  I  will  tell  you  what  it  would  be  for  aught  that  Infi- 
delity has  done  for  it  in  that  direction. 

I  anticipate  in  reply  an  elaborate  treatise  on  Paine  and 
his  iron  bridge ;  Girard  College  in  Philadelphia ;  James 
Lick,  and  the  California  observatory;  Tyndall  and  his  ex- 
periments; Huxley  and  his  speculations;  Darwin  and  his 
theories,  and  ever  so  much  more  in  that  line.  I  give  skep- 
tics credit  for  ail  they  have  done.  But  they  were  not  the 
pioneers  of  science.  They  do  not,  and  they  cannot  sit  un- 
der ihtiir  awn  vine  and  fig-tree.     They  have  themselves. 


I 


133 


THE  iirMrnRET-BENNETT  0i6Ctr8srcni& 


■f 


almost  ta  a  man,  been  trained  and  educated  by  religiom 
teachers.  In  the  hour  of  difficulty  and  darkness,  the  Chris- 
tian was  in  the  front,  bearing  the  brunt  of  the  battle, 
while  the  Infidel  lagged  behind,  whining  and  finding  fault, 
but  doing  nothing.  But  now,  after  the  day  of  donbt  and 
danger  is  past,  and  the  Tictory  is  won,  behold  him  scram- 
ing  forward  for  the  booty  and  the  glory!  He  beheld,  pass- 
ing along,  the  ehariot  of  Progress,  drawn  by  the  steeds  of 
Faith  and  Works*  He  saw  that  it  was  his  only  chance  for 
a  ride.  Though  a  "  deadhead,"  he  was  not  refused  a  place. 
He  clambered  eagerly  up,  cocked  himself  on  a  back  seat, 
and  then  began  to  scatter  hand-bills  among  the  spectators, 
inscribed,  See/  m  what  InfideUtp  is  doing  far  ihe  advance 

mentof  Science!/ 

But  my  article  is  already  too  long.    The  sum  of  what  ha» 
been  said  is  this:  Believers  in  the  Bible  have  given  to  man- 
kind over  a  hundred  universities;  innumerable  colleges, 
aeademies  and  schools;  the  first  and  largest  libraries  and 
athen»ums  of  the  world;  the  cardinal  discoveries  and  in- 
ventions, such  as  the  Western  Hemisohere,  the  heliocentric 
theory,  the  law  of  gravitation,  the  steam  engine,  the  tele- 
graph, and  the  printing-press,  which,  beginning  with  the 
Bible,  has  filled  the  earth  with  books.    Scriptural  religion 
lias  ever  held  alofl  the  primeval  Fiat.  Let  there  be  light. 
This  light  has  varied  in  intensity  at  different  periods.    The 
whirlwinds  of  persecution  have  rushed  upon  it.    The  mist 
of  superstition  has  enveloped  it.    The  choke-damp  of  indif- 
erence  has  dimmed  it.    Many  a  )ack-with-a-lantern  has  set 
itself  up  against  it.    But  it  has  never  been  extinguished. 
Its  flame  has  always  been  the  brightest,  highest,  and  steadi- 
est   The  Spirit  of  History  is  waiting  for  a  greater  than 
Bartholdi  to  prepare  a  worthy  statue  of  Chbistiakity  En^ 

UOHTENINO  THK  WORLD. 

Yours  with  respect,  G.  H.  Bvkpsbxw 


i: 


THB  HUMPHBE7  -  BSNNXTT  DISOinMIOir. 


MR,    BBlfiriBTT, 


131 


Rev.  O.  H.  Humphbet,  Dear  Sir:  I  do  not  call  Judge 
Story  especially  a  "  pettifogger,"  but  mean  all  who  try 
to  make  out  that  our  National  Constitution  is  a  Christian 
Institution,  when  it  contains  not  a  word  about  God,  Jesus 
Christ,  or  the  Bible.  So  far  as  the  coat  fits  Judge  Story 
he  is  entitled  to  wear  it 

You  mentioned  Lincoln  again.    While  his  name  is  still 
on  the  tapis  allow  me  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  Robert  Dale 
Owen,  the  Infidel,  who  has  just  died,  full  of  years  and 
honor,  had  not  a  little  influence  in  causing  Mr.  Lincoln  to 
issue  his  ever-memorable    Emancipation    Proclamation. 
His  letter  to  Lincoln  upon  the  subject,  urging  with  power- 
ful arguments  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  the  south- 
ern rebels,  was  written  upon  the  day  of  the  battle  of  Antie- 
tam,  Sept.  17, 1863.    Mr.  Lincoln  wrote  the  Proclamation 
on  the  20lh  and  21st,  read  it  to  the  Cabinet  and  signed 
it  on  the  22d,  and  it  was  issued  on  the  23d.     This  letter  by 
Mr.  Owen  has  just   been    published   for  the   first   time 
In  our  city  papers.    That  it  had  irreat  influence  upon  Mr. 
Lincoln's  mind  in  deciding  upon  the  course   to  pursue 
may  be  learned  from  this  extract  of  a  letter  from  Salmon 
P.  Chase— who  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  Lincoln, 
and  who  handed  Mr.  Owen's  letter  to  the  President— to  Mr. 
Owen:  "It  will  be  a  satisfaction  to  you  to  know  that  your 
letter  to  the  President  had  more  influence  on  him  than  any 
other  document  which  reached  him  upon  the  subject—/ 
think  T  might  say  more  than  aU  others  put  together.   I  speak  of 
that  which  I  know,  from  personal  conference  with  him. "   I 
mention  this  matter  l»ecause  it  has  recently  for  the  first  time 
been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  public,  and  to  show  that  one 
of  the  oldest  Infidels  in  the  country  had  far  more  influence 
in  the  issuing  of  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  than  all 
that  Christians  said  upon  the  subject,  including  the  Chris- 
tian McClellan,  who,  in  his  Harrison  Landing  letter  to  Lin 


;  -I 

i 


ii' 
'ii, 


If 


m 


THB   HUMPHHBT-BlirKBTT  DISCUSSION. 


coin,  strongly  urged  him  to  take  no  steps  towards  disturb- 
ing the  institution  of  Slavery.  So,  here  is  another  proof 
that  the  credit  of  the  emancipation  of  four  mUlions  of 
daves,  which  you  claimed  for  Christianity,  really  belongs 

to  Infidelity. 

I  was  in  hopes  that  inasmuch  as  you  hold  the  Bible  to  be 
a  book  of   science,  and  your  faith  in   it  is   so  strong, 
you  would  give  a  scientific  explanation  of  how  the  earth 
could  exist,  morning  and  evening  take  place, vegetation  of 
all  kinds  grow  and  flourish,  perfecting  fruit  and  seeds,  be- 
fore the  sun  had  been  brought  into  existence  and  before 
there  had  been  a  drop  of  rain  upon  the  earth.    I  hoped, 
too,  you  would  explain  scientifically  how  the  water  was 
produced  which  covered  the  earth  30,000  feet  in  depth,  and 
where  it  went  to  afterwards;  for  many  thousands  have 
wondered  in  their  simple  hearts  how  God  could  make  so 
much  water  and  how  a  little  wind  which  he  sent  over  the  face 
of  it  could  dry  it  all  up,  and  where  it  went  to  when  in  a 
state  of  vapor.    I  was  in  hopes  you  would  bring  your 
science  to  the  task  of  explaining  how  a  man  could  stop  or 
control  any  of  the  heavenly  bodies;  how  the  waters  of  seas 
and  rivers  can  be  divided  and  made  to  stand  up  in  perpen- 
dicular walls  and  wait  for  millions  of  people  and  cattle  to 
pass  over.    I  was  in  hopes,  also,  you  would  give  a  scientific 
explanation  of  the  hundreds  of  utter  impossibilities  with 
the  accounts  of  which  your  scientific  book  is  so  plenti- 
fully filled;  but  it  seems  you  found  it  more  convenient  to 
skip  over  them  and  thousands  of  years  of  superstition  and 
error— for  which  your  Bible  is  directly  responsible— and 
come  down  to  modem  times,  when  science  has  been  able  to 
raise  its  head  and  wield  some  influence  in  the  world.       ^ 

You  speak  of  my  "misrepresentations,"  and  enumerate 
several  of  them.  I  did  not  intend  to  use  misrepresentation 
nor  falsehood,  and,  with  your  permission,  will  look  at  my 
mistakes  and  see  how  "  gross  "  they  are.  What  you  claim  at 
"error  first"  is  where  I  said  the  book  of  Job  is  not  men- 


*■ 


THE  HUMPnUEY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


188 


tioned  in  any  other  part  of  the  Bible.  You  show  that  the 
name  of  Job  is  used  in  three  places.  Pardon  me;  I  can- 
not see  bow  that  shows  that  I  misrepresented.  I  said 
the  hook  was  not  mentioned,  not  the  name  !  The  name  Job 
is  mentioned  once  in  Genesis  (and  there  are  not  the  slight- 
est grounds  for  supposing  it  was  the  man  who  had  the 
boils) ;  it  is  mentioned  once  in  Ezekiel,  and  once  in  the 
New  Testament.  I  did  not  succeed  in  finding  it  in  the 
Apocrypha  where  you  directed  me.  Ezekiel  mentions 
Noab,  Job,  and  Daniel.  It  cannot  be  the  Daniel  who  is 
said  to  have  been  thrown  into  the  lions'  den,  for  that  Dan- 
iel did  not  live  and  write  until  a  generation  later  than 
Ezekiel,  and  many  learned  scholars  believe  that  the  book 
of  Daniel  was  not  written  till  four  hundred  years  later  than 
the  time  it  ^purports  to  have  been,  so  we  are  at  a  loss  to 
know  what  Daniel  it  was  Ezekiel  talked  about,  and  it  is  the 
same  of  Job.  It  is  probable  that  the  three  names  he  used 
were  only  myths  of  whom  he  knew  nothing.  The  matter 
of  James'  using  the  name  of  Job,  and  referring  to  the  story, 
has  no  more  force  than  your  or  my  using  it.  He  knew  no 
more  about  Job  or  his  book  than  we  do.  Mark,  I  did  not 
say  the  name  Job  was  not  used,  but  meant  that  the  locality, 
characters,  and  incidents  of  his  story  were  not  alluded  to  in 
any  cotemporaneous  part  of  the  Bible. 

You  next  attempt  to  show  that  I  was  wrong  when  I 
merely  asked  the  question  if  the  best  Hebrew  scholars  had 
not  decided  that  the  book  of  Job  was  not  written  by  a  He- 
brew. I  made  no  assertion,  but  asked  a  question.  But  I 
was  not  mistaken.  Ebenezar  and  Spinoza  were  learned 
Jews  who  so  held  in  relation  to  that  book.  The  names  you 
give  in  refutation  are  of  the  past  two  or  three  centuries, 
and  of  men  whose  opinions  were  given  before  philology 
had  been  extensively  brought  to  bear  as  an  auxiliary  in 
deciding  the  origin  of  ancient  writings.  If  you  will  consult 
the  modern  learned  Hebrew  scholars,  Ewald,  Kuenen,  Gold- 
xiber,  and  Adler,  you  will  find  that  they  regard  the  book 


184 


TBB  mJMPMBlT-BBNNKTT  DISCUSBIOIT. 


of  Job  as  a  Oentile  production,  and  also  as  having  been 
written  at  a  much  later  period  than  was  formerly  supposed 
—as  late,  at  least,  as  the  date  of  the  Jewish  captivity.  The 
learned  historian  and  essayist,  Froude,  maintains  the  same 
opinion,  as  you  will  find  by  reading  his  Essays.  Chandler 
Halstead  also  entertains  the  same  views.  They  all  found 
that  the  personsB  of  the  drama,  or  poem,  were  not  Hebrew, 
most  of  il\em  being  Arabic;  the  names  of  the  constellations 
mentioned  are  Greek,  while  the  theological  ideas  employed 
were  distinctively  Egyptian,  and  were  not  written  till  some 
centuries  after  the  translators  supposed  it  to  have  been. 
The  conception  of  the  character,  Satan,  is  not  Hebrew,  and 
his  name  is  mentioned  in  only  three  other  places  in  the 
Old  Testament,  which  is  the  part  of  the  Bible  I  referred  to 
in  connection  with  Job.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment certainly  knew  nothing  of  him.  I  did  not  misrepre- 
sent as  to  Job. 

You  arraign  me  next  for  saying  that  Paul  used  the  word 
idence  but  once,  and  say  he  used  the  word  which  should 
have  been  translated  tcisnes  about  twenty  times.  I  referred 
solely  to  the  English  version,  deeming  that  sufficient  for  our 
purpose.  If  it  was  not  translated  right,  so  much  the  worse 
for  the  translation  ;  it  is  no  fault  of  mine.  But  the  Greek 
word  gn6»i»  does  not  mean  sdenee;  it  simply  means  to  know 
and  corresponds  with  our  ^ord  know  or  knowledge.  It 
does  not  reach  the  dignity  of  science,  of  which  Paul  knew 
and  cared  very  little.    Thus  you  will  see  I  was  not  in  error 

here. 

You  next  take  me  to  task  for  saying  the  ancient  Jews 
lived  in  tents  and  knew  very  little  about  houses.  To  dis- 
prove the  fact  you  quote  the  singing  of  visionary,  dreamy 
prophets  about  Summer-houses,  Winter-houses,  houses  of 
ivory,  etc.  Summer-houses  were  doubtless  very  slight  edi- 
fices, and  probably  composed  of  vines  and  branches.  The 
Winter-houses  may  have  been  of  rough  stones  and  earth. 
«' Houses  of  ivory"  probably  had  a  far  more  ideal  than 


■^ 


THE  HUMPHBET-BBNHKTT  DISCUSSION, 


1C5 


Teal  existence.  I  must  repeat  that  the  remains  of  houses  of 
tewn  stone  are  not  to  be  found  in  Palestine.  Not  a  hewn 
stone,  not  a  monument,  not  a  Hebrew  inscription  is  to  be 
found  in  the  whole  country.  The  Jews  were  a  branch  of  the 
Semitic  race,  and  more  or  less  of  a  mixed  character— 
^brothers  of  tl^  Arabs— and  semi-barbarians.  These  races 
^11  lived  in  tents  and  knew  very  little  of  houses,  and  there 
is  no  proof  to  the  contrary.  Until  there  is  something  more 
reliable  to  depend  upon  than  the  inventions  of  dreamers 
^nd  singers,  I  oan  hardly  xjhange  my  position  upon  the 
subject  of  Israelitish  dwellings. 

Let  me  here  give  a  quotation^  as  not  inappropriate,  from 
Albert  Barnes,  the -distinguished  theologian:  **The  Bible 
came  from  a  land  undistinguished  for  Uterature- a  land  not 
rich  in  classical  associations,  a  land  not  distinspiished  for 
pushing  its  discoveries  into  the  regions  of  science.  Ohal- 
4ea  had  its  observatories,  and  the  dwellers  then  looked  out 
on  the  stars  and  gave  them  names ;  Egypt  had  its  temples, 
where  the  truths  of  science  as  weU  as  the  precepts  of  re- 
ligion were  committed  to  the  sacred  priesthood  4  Greece 
bad  academic  grores,  but  Judea  had  neither.  To  such 
things  the  attention  of  the  nation  was  never  turned.  We 
have  aU  their  literature,  all  their  science,  ail  their  knowledge 
of  art,  and  ail  this  is  in  the  Bible.  Among  the  ancients  they 
were  regarded  as  a  narrow-minded,  a  bigoted,  a  supersti- 
tious people  "  (Lectures  on  Ev.  of  Christianity,  p.  257). 

You  next  arraign  me  for  saying  the  Hebrews  stole  from 
the  Egyptians.  Are  you  not  catching  at  small  straws  t 
What  is  the  difference  morally,  or  in  fact,  between  stealing, 
and  barrawing  without  the  slightest  intention  of  ever 
returning  ?  Besides,  in  Exodus  xii.  36.  in  alluding  to  this 
very  business,  it  says  the  Israelites  epoOed  the  Egyptians. 
In  Webster's  Christian  Dictionary,  epoil  is  defined  to  mean 
to  rob,  to  plunder.  So  I  was  not  far  out  of  the  way.  If  I 
had  used  the  harsher  word  roh,  it  would  have  been  quite 
correet 


136 


HUMPHBET-BENNETT  DZSCUSSIOK. 


k 


Yoa  next  indict  me  for  saying  Paul  was  great  for  eitoll- 
ing  tlie  virtues  of  faitli  and  blind  credulity.  Tou  acknowl- 
edge the  correctness  of  fmlh^  but  say  as  to  blind  credulity 
it  is  "utterly  false."  Now  I  cannot  see  mnch  difference 
between  faith  and  ereduiity,  whether  blind  or  not  blind.  You 
■eem  to  make  a  distinction  where  there  is  no  difference. 
What  is  faith  unless  it  is  credulity  7  Webster,  in  his  Chris 
Han  dictionary,  defines  it  as  belief;  assent  of  the  mind  to 
the  truth  of  what  is  declared  by  another,  resting  solely  and 
implicitly  on  his  authority  and  veracity— in  other  words 
*"*  going  it  bliad."  Paul  had  a  great  deal  to  say  about  faith. 
He  used  the  word  oyer  one  hundred  and  fifty  times. 
In  the  Old  Testament  it  is  used  but  once.  Paul  said, 
**  Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  cTidence 
of  things  not  seen*'  (Heb.  zi  1).  Now  if  the  things  be- 
lieyed  in  were  not  deen,  was  it  not  a  kind  of  blind  er§- 
dvUtyt  Haye  not  you  and  all  other  Christians  faith  in 
many  things  which  you  never  saw,  and  of  which  you  never 
had  any  proof  ?  Bo  you  not  believe  that  Jesus  was  Godf 
that  he  was  begotten  by  Qod  or  by  himself  ?  that  he  had  no 
natural  father  ?  that  faith  in  him  is  sufficient  ta  save  mill- 
ions of  poor  souls  from  the  torments  of  hell  ?  that  one  is 
three  and  three  are  one  f  that  a  son  can  be  as  old  as  his 
father  and  equal  in  all  respects  ?  You  have  no  proof  of 
these  things  ;  you  never  saw  them.  You  believe  without 
proof — nothing  more  or  less  than  hUnd  credulity,  I  have 
heard  Christians  again  and  again  declare  the  importance  of 
having  faith  without  proof.  That  is  bUnd  faith  ;  nothing 
less.  There  are  many  things  in  the  Christian  faith  that  are 
firmly  believed  which  have  not  the  slightest  proof.  1  call 
such  faith  lUind  credulity,  and  I  can  make  nothing  else  of 
it  It  is  the  same  confidence  which  a  young  robin  (blind) 
has  in  its  parent  when  it  opens  its  mouth  and  takes  what- 
ever is  given  it.  I  have  often  heard  that  kind  of  confidence 
and  credulity  extolled  by  Christiana.  It  certainly  is  a  ver^ 
lUiad  cxednli^. 


THE  HUMPHRBT-BENNBTT  DISCUSSIOIT. 


187 


You  next  attempt  to  show  that  I  misrepresented  when 
I  said  Solomon  was  remarkable  for  his  sensuality.  You 
admit  the  fact  but  seek  to  evade  its  force  by  saying 
the  Bible  condemned  him  for  it.  You  hardly  state  the 
truth.  It  does  not  condemn  him  for  sensuality,  but  for 
going  after  other  gods.  "And  the  Lord  God  was  angry 
with  Solomon  because  his  heart  was  turned  from  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel "  (1  Kings,  xi.  9),  but  not  a  word  of  anger 
was  expressed  because  he  had  seven  hundred  wives  and 
three  hundred  concubines.  It  was  not  asked  of  him  to  be 
any  better  than  was  David,  his  father,  and  you  cannot  have 
forgotten  how  his  sensual  love  was  aroused  towards  another 
man's  wife,  Bathsheba ;  how  he  committed  adultery  with 
her  and  then  caused  her  husband  to  be  put  to  death  to 
cover  his  guilt.  This  conduct  was  all  right  enough,  so  he 
did  not  turn  away  from  his  God.  Solomon,  in  like  manner, 
could  have  committed  adultery  and  gross  sensuality  as 
much  as  he  pleased,  if  he  had  not  worshiped  other  gods. 
Herein  consisted  his  sin.  His  sensuality,  like  David's, 
could  have  been  easily  winked  at. 

Here  let  me  say  that  you  seem  to  have  stepped  out  of  your 
way  to  malign  Freethinkers  and  make  the  untruthful 
assertion  that  "  the  most  progressive  and  advanced  Free- 
thinkers justify  and  defend  remarkable  sensuality.'*  The 
most  advanced  or  the  most  prominent  Freethinkers'  do  noth- 
ing of  the  kind.  So  far  as  my  acquaintance  goes  among 
Freethinkers  (and  I  ought  to  be  as  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  them  as  yourself),  they  live  as  faithfully  and  happily 
in  their  domestic  relations  as  any  class  of  men.  Tyndall, 
Proctor,  Holyoake,  Bradlaugh  and  Watts  in  England, 
Owen,  Mendum,  Seaver,  Draper,  Abbot,  Ingersoll,  Un- 
derwood, Denton,  Tuttle  and  scores  of  others,  will  com 
pare  favorably  in  this  respect  with  the  very  best  of  citi- 
zens. JIven  the  **  Free-lovers,"  so  called,  are  not  guilty  of 
'^remarkable  sensuality,"  as  were  David  and  Solomon. 
They  indulge  no  more  in  "  free-lust "  than  other  persons 


i- 


•If 

f 

y 

-t 
♦it 


im 


THB  BUKFHBKT-BBNKBTT  DIBCUSBIOH. 


They  simply  hold  that  love  should  he  free.  Let  me  ask  if  you 
are  in  fayor  of  forced  love  7  Ought  not  love  always  to  be 
firtef  As  you  are  a  member  of  the  American  clergy,  let  me 
say  to  you  in  the  most  friendly  spirit,  that  you  ought  to  be 
careful  how  you  make  the  charge  of  sensuality  against  Free- 
thinkers, for  however  virtuous  you  may  be  yourself,  your 
brethren  are  certainly  very  vulnerable.  If  I  were  to  look 
for  acts  of  sensuality  and  adultery  I  know  of  no  more 
prolific  source  than  among  the  clergy  of  our  country.  I 
think  I  can  name  some  hundreds  of  cases  where  adultery 
has  been  proved  upon  them,  and  I  defy  you  to  do  anything 
of  the  kind  among  Freethinkers.  I  do  not  say  that  not  one 
among  the  latter  has  ever  made  a  mistake  in  this  direction, 
but  I  do  insist  that  they  are  as  law-abiding  and  as  moral  as 
other  men.  For  every  adulterous  Freethinker  you  point 
out,  I  agree  to  name  twenty  adulterous  clergymen.  You  do 
not  strengthen  your  case  by  such  uncalled-for  insinuations. 

Tou  take  exceptions  to  my  saying  there  was  nothing  among 
the  ancient  Jews  showing  a  high  order  of  civilization.  It 
does  not  seem  that  I  am  far  out  of  the  way  when  nothing 
can  be  cited  to  the  contrary.  Not  an  ancient  painting,  not 
a  piece  of  sculpture,  not  a  work  of  fine  art,  no  ruins  of 
temples  or  splendid  architecture,  nothing  of  the  kind,  while 
in  other  countries  there  is  much  that  speaks  of  ancient  grand- 
eur and  art.  So  far  as  DeWette  is  concerned,  he  can  hardly 
be  ranked  as  a  Rationalist.  Some  of  his  writings  tended 
slightly  in  that  direction,  but  he  gravitated  towards  the 
Church,  and  he  was  accepted  as  orthodox. 

You  close  your  arraignment  by  saying  you  **  cannot  stop 
to  expose  all  my  misrepresentations."  Indeed  I  What 
haste  you  must  be  in.  If  I  made  misrepresentations  I  wish 
them  exposed;  but  with  all  due  respect  allow  me  to  say  that 
I  thiok  you  made  out  a  slim  case  in  exposing  my  errors. 
I  claim  that  in  every  instance  where  you  charge  me  with 
misrepresentation  I  was  entirely  correct 

You  did  not  satiily  iii»  •■  to  proofs  about  th«  intimate 


THB  HUMPHBBY-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


m 


knowledge  the  Hebrew  women  had  of  dressmaking,  cos- 
metics,  etc.  You  quote  from  Isaiah,  etc.,  where  they  are 
complained  of  for  being  haughty,  stretching  out  their 
necks,  having  wanton  eyes,  mincing  steps,  and  mak- 
ing a  tinkling  with  their  feet;  about  their  rings  in  thek 
cars  and  their  noses^  all  of  which  sounds  more  as  though 
they  were  semi-savages  than  highly  cultured  and  intellect- 
ual ladies.  I  must  confess  myself  unconvinced  as  to  theit 
perfect  and  refined  civilization. 

You  next  say  "  The  Bible  does  not  pretend  to  be  a  text- 
book of  science."  That  is  just  what  I  think,  and  I  looked 
upon  it  as  a  mistake  in  you  to  set  up  the  claim  that  it  had 
any  affinity  or  connection  with  science.  There  is  hardly  a 
book  in  existence  that  Is  more  unscientific  than  the  Bible, 
none  more  at  variance  with  the  experience  of  mankind  and 
with  the  laws  of  the  Universe. 

It  appears  to  me  that  you  are  wide  of  the  truth  when  you 
claim  a  close  intimacy  between  Christianity  and  science,  or 
that  the  former  has  been  friendly  to  the  latter.  A  marked  an- 
tagonism  existed  between  them  for  more  than  sixteen  hun- 
dred years.  Christianity  found  Southern  Europe  in  theenjoy- 
ment  of  an  advanced  state  of  phUosophy  and  science.    The 
labors  and   scholarship   of  Pythagoras,   Socrates,  Plato* 
Euclid,    Hipparchus,    Aristotle.    Eratosthenes,    Ptolemy. 
Archimedes,  Apollonius,  and  others,  had  given  to  the  world 
a  higher  degree  of  philosophy  and  learning  than  it  had 
before  enjoyed.    Astronomy,  geology,  chemistry,  mathe- 
matics, mechanics,  etc,  had  been  developed  and  brought  to 
the  knowledge  of  thousands.    During  the  five  centuries 
before  the  dawn  of  Christianity  science   achieved  more 
distinction  and  position  than  it  had  ever  before  attained. 
But  when  that  system  of  religion  became  a  ruling  power  in 
the  world  this  was  immensely  changed. 

Christianity  was  made  up  of  the  theology  of  the  Hebrews, 
combined  with  the  story  and  teachings  of  the  reputed  Jesus, 
incorporated  with  the  dogmas  of  Paganism.    Neither  the 


-    -J 


-"  .1 


*  I 

1 


140 


THB  HUMPHREY  -  BENNiftT  DlSCUSSIOli. 


accredited  founder  of  the  system  nor  any  of  the  disciplef 
or  apostles  whom  he  chose  as  companions  were  men  of 
learning.    There  is  no  authentic  record  that  Jesus  attended 
school  or  that  he  was  a  scholar.    There  is  no  statement  that 
he  ever  wrote  a  word  or  imparted  a  particle  of  practical 
scientific  knowledge.    All  the  narratives  we  have  of  him 
represent  him  as  a  strolling  mendicant  who  taught  his  fol- 
lowers no   useful  pursuits  of  life,  and  who   stifled   all 
enterprise,    thrift,    and   foresight   by  enjoining   his   fol- 
lowers and   listeners  to  take  no  thought   for  the  mor- 
row—to make  no  provision  for  the  future.    Though  he 
is  believed  to  be  the  son  of  Jehovah  or  to  be  the  great 
Deity  himself— the  source  of  all  knowledge  and  all  science- 
he  never  during  his  ministry  gave  his  students  one  lesson 
in  practical  science.    He  gave  no  evidence  of  knowing  any- 
thing about  astronomy,  geology,  chemistry,  mathematics, 
hydrostatics,  mechanics,  biology,  philology,  psychology, 
or  any  of  the  kindred  sciences.     Had  he  possessed  sci- 
entific knowledge,  and  had  he  felt  disposed  to  be  a  practical 
benefit  to  the  human  race,  what  a  splendid  opportunity 
was  afforded  him  for  imparting  a  great  fund  of  information 
to  those  who  listened  to  him  I    But  he  had  not  the  informa- 
tion to  impart 

The  Apostles  were  no  better.  They  were  unlettered, 
ignorant  men,  and  were  capable  of  treating  of  but  little  save 
tiie  excellence  of  faith  in  the  merits  of  the  blood  of  a  cruci- 
fied God.  They  did  cot  present  to  the  people  to  whom 
they  ministered  any  new  scientific  truths,  nor  did  they  in 
the  slightest  degree  advance  the  knowledge  of  the  world  in 
the  practical,  useful,  vital  affairs  of  life. 

The  early  Fathers  of  the  Church  were  of  the  same  char- 
acter. A  majority  of  them  were  uneducated  men.  Some 
became  proficient  in  the  lore  of  the  time,  but  science 
and  learning  were  the  least  among  their  cares.  Their  ob. 
Jcct  was  to  establish  their  system  of  religion,  and  to  hold  up 
the  uncertain  statf  of  happiness  in  a  future  life  aa  of  moi« 


THE  HUMPHREY -BENNETT  DISCUSaiON. 


141 


consequence  than  education  and  prosperity  in  this.  As  the 
Church  increased  in  numbers,  and  under  the  murderous 
Contantine  became  a  political  power  in  the  world,  the  phi- 
losophy and  learning  of  the  previous  centuries  receded  from 
view  and  were  superseded  by  sectarian  contention,  bigotry, 
superstition,  and  ignorance,  until  the  priesthood  of  the 
Christian  Church  became  themselves  the  most  ignorant  of 
men;  not  one  in  twenty  could  read,  or  write  his  own  name. 
So  far  from  aiding  the  cause  of  science  and  learning,  it 
rather  did  all  it  could  to  retard  them.  The  Serapion  of 
Alexandria,  which  contained  four  hundred  thou«and  vol- 
umes, by  far  the  largest  library  in  the  world,  was  ruthlessly 
destroyed  near  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  by  the  Chris- 
tian Archbishop  Theophilus;  and  Hypatia,  the  daiighter  of 
Theon  the  mathematician,  a  devoted  student  and  teacher 
of  science  and  learning,  and  who  distinguished  herself  by 
her  expositions  of  the  doctrines  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  as 
well  as  by  her  comments  on  the  writings  of  Apollonius, 
was  assaulted  while  on  her  way  to  the  academy  by  a  mob  •f 
Christian  monks  under  bt.  Cyril,  who  had  succeeded  to  the 
episcopacy  occupied  by  his  uncle  Theohpilus,  and  she  was 
stripped  naked  in  the  street,  then  dragged  into  the  church, 
and  there  killed  by  the  club  of  Peter  the  Reader.  Her 
corpse  was  cut  in  pieces,  the  flesh  scraped  from  her  bones 
with  shells  by  those  Christian  fiends,  who  doubtless  felt 
that  they  had  done  great  service  to  their  Church  and  their 
cause. 

Professor  Draper  thus  tersely  speaks  upon  the  subject: 
"  So  ended  Greek  philosophy  in  Alexandria;  so  came  to  an 
untimely  close  the  learning  that  the  Ptolemies  had  done  so 
much  to  promote.  The  'Daughter  Library/  that  of  the 
Serapion,  had  been  dispersed.  The  fate  of  Hypalia  was  a 
warning  to  all  who  would  cultivate  profane  knowledge. 
Henceforth  there  was  to  be  no  freedom  for  human  thought. 
Every  one  must  think  as  the  ecclesiastical  authority  ordered 
him— JL  D.  414.    In  Athens  itself  philosophy  awaited  iia 


142 


THE  HUMPHREY-BSXNETT  DISCUSBIOIT. 


'1(1 

m 


doom.    JustiDian  at  length  prohibited  its  teaching  and 
caused  all  its  schools  in  that  city  to  be  closed." 

The  history  of  the  triumph  of  faith  over  reason,  learning, 
and  science  is  one  sickening  to  read.   It  is  full  and  explicit, 
but  the  limits  of  this  letter  will  allow  me  to  make  only  here 
and  there  a  quotation.    *'  The  fourth  Council  of  Carthage 
forbade  the  reading  of  secular  books  by  the  bishops.    Je- 
rome condemned  the  use  of  them  except  for  pious  purposes. 
The  physical  sciences  were  unqualifiedly  condemned,  as 
their  cultivation  was  considered  incompatible  with  the  prac- 
tice of  religious  dulies.    ...     No  importance  was  at- 
tached to  anything  of  an  intellectual  character  except  the 
childish  and  unintelligible  controversies  which  were  carried 
on  for  centuries  "  (Underwood).    "  These  disputes  diverted 
studious  minds  from  profane  literature,  and  narrowed  down 
more  and  more  the  circle  of  that  knowledge  which  they 
were  desirous  to  obtain  "  (Hallam*s  Middle  Ages,  p.  458). 
Thus  says  the  Christian  historian,  Guizot:  "We  saw  them 
(profane  literature  and  pagan  philosophy)  soon  disappear ; 
sacred  literature  and  Christian  theology  alone  remained. 
We  no  longer  meet  with  anything  but  sermons,  legends, 
etc    This  decay  has  generally  been  attributed  to  the  tyr- 
anny of  the  Church,  to  the  triumph  of  the  principles  of 
authority  and  faith  over  the  principles  of  liberty  and  rea- 
son "  (Hist.  Civilization,  vol.  iii,  p.  80). 

"  The  lives  of  the  saints  was  the  literature  of  the  time. 
There  were  men  who  occupied  themselves  in  collecting 
them,  writing  them  and  recounting  them  for  the  edifica- 
tion, no  doubt,  but  more  especially  the  intellectual  pleasure 
of  the  Christians"  (ibid,  vol.  ii,  p.  33»).  ''These  lives  of 
the  faints  filled  fifty-three  volumes.  There  were  1442  for 
the  month  of  April  alone.  There  were  more  than  25,000 
saints  contained  in  the  fif  Jy-three  volumes  "  (ibid,  vol.  ii, 
p.  350).  "The  legends  were  to  the  Christians  of  this  age 
(let  me  be  allowed  this  purely  literary  comparison),  what 
those  long  accounts,  those  brilliant  and  varied  histories,  of 


THE  HUMPHREY-BE2TNETT  DISCUSSION. 


143 


which  the  '  Thousand  and  One  Nights '  gives  us  a  specimen. 
were  to  the  Orientals"  (ibid,  p.  850).  "Literature,  prop- 
crly  so  called,  held  but  little  place  in  the  Christian  world  " 
(ibid,  p.  95).  **  From  the  fourth  to  the  eighth  century 
there  was  no  longer  any  profane  literature  ;  sacred  litera- 
ture stands  alone  ;  priests  only  study  or  write;  and  they 
only  study,  they  only  write  upon  religious  subjects  "  (ibid, 
p.  317).  "  Toward  the  end  of  the  sixth  century  there  are 
DO  longer  civil  schools ;  ecclesiastical  schools  alone  sub- 
sist" (ibid,  p.  318).  "The  metamorphosis  of  civil  schools 
into  ecclesiastical  schools  was  complete"  (ibid,  p.  818). 
"  Not  only  did  literature  become  entirely  religious,  but  it 
ceased  to  be  literary;  there  was  no  longer  any  literature, 
properly  so  called"  (ibid,  p.  320).  "Doubtless  nothing  re- 
mains belonging  to  this  age  either  of  philosophy,  poetry, 
or  literature,  properly  speaking  .  .  but  there  was  a  world 
of  writings;  they  are  sermons,  instructions,  exhortations, 
homilies     and     conferences    upon    religious     matters'' 

(ibid,  p.  321). 

You  must  accept  Guizot's  authority,  for  he  was  em- 
inently Christian;  but  Ingersoll  portrayed  much  the  same 
stete  of  facts  when  he  said,  "  In  the  Dark  Ages  the  Church 
had  the  world  by  the  throat.  Every  thought  was  strangled, 
every  idea  lost.  Science  was  actually  thrust  into  the  brain 
of  Europe  at  the  point  of  Moorish  bayonets." 

Hal  lam  you  will  accept  as  a  reliable  Christian  historian. 
Although  in  many  instancea  he  seems  actuated  by  a  desire 
to  present  the  side  of  the  Church  in  as  favorable  a  light  as 
possible,  the  facts  he  states  are  suflicient  to  forever  damn  it.. 
I  will  make  a  few  quotations  from  his  Middle  Ages:  '*A 
cloud  of  ignorance  overspread  the  whole  face  of  the  Church, 
hurdly  broken  by  a  few  glimmering  lights,  who  owe  al- 
most the  whole  of  their  distingtion  to  the  surrounding 
darkness  "  (p.  460).  '^  In  the  shadows  of  this  universal  igno- 
rance a  thousand  superstitions,  like  foul  animals  of  niglit, 
were  propagated  and  nourished*    France  reached  her  low* 


f 


1I 


r 


H 


fl 


/ 


144 


THB  HXTMPHRET-BSNNETT  OISCUSaiOH. 


est  point  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  >  but 
England  was,  at  that  time,  more  respectable,  and  did  not 
fall  into  complete  degradation  until  the  middle  of  the  ninth. 
There  could  be  nothiog  more  deplorable  than  the  state  of 
Italy  during  the  succeeding  century.  In  almost  every 
council  the  ignorance  of  the  clergy  forms  a  subject  of 
reproach.  It  is  asserted  of  one  held  in  993  that  scarcely  a 
single  person  was  to  be  found,  in  Home  itself,  who  knew 
the  first  elements  of  letters.  Not  one  priest  of  a  thousand 
in  Spain  about  the  agje  of  Charlemagne,  could  address  a 
common  letter  of  salutation  to  one  another"  (p.  460).  Inger- 
Boll  stated  the  case  in  reference  to  the  influence  the  Church 
had  exercised  when  he  said  it  had  "  reduced  Spain  to  a 
guitar,  Italy  to  a  hand-organ,  and  Ireland  to  exile." 

I  will  make  a  quotation  or  two  from  Lecky :  **  Mediseval 
Catholicism  discouraged  and  suppressed  in  every  way  secu- 
lar studies,  while  It  conferred  a  monopoly  of  wealth  and 
honor  and  fame  upon  distinguished  theologians"  (History  of 
Morals,  vol.  ii.  p.  222).  "  Not  till  the  education  of  Europe 
passed  from  the  monasteries  to  the  universities;  not  till 
Mohammedan  science  and  classical  f  reethought  and  indus- 
trial independence  broke  the  scepter  of  the  Church  did  the 
intellectual  revival  of  Europe  commence  "  (ibid,  p.  219). 
**  Few  men  who  are  not  either  priests  or  monks  would  not 
have  preferred  to  live  in  the  best  days  of  the  Athenian  or  of 
the  Roman  Republics,  in  the  age  of  Augustus  or  in  the  age 
of  the  Antonines.  rather  than  in  any  period  that  elapsed  be- 
tween the  triumph  of  Christianity  and  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury "  (ibid,  p.  13). 
"The  influence  of  theology  having  for  centuries  benumbed 
and  paralyzed  the  whole  intellect  of  Christian  Europe,  the 
revival  which  forms  the  starting  point  of  our  modem 
civilization  was  mainly  d^e  to  the  fact  that  two  spheres  of 
intellect  still  remained  uncontrolled  by  the  scepter  of  Cathol 
icbm.  The  Pagan  literature  of  antiquity  and  the  Moham- 
medan echoola  of  scienee  were  the  chief  agencies  Ik  resus 


TBB  HXJMPHKET- BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


145 


citating  the  dormant  energies  of  Christianity  ",(ihid.  p.  18). 

Here  is  given  the  true  sources  of  the  science  which  the 
civilized  world  enjoys:  first,  the  learning  of  the  ancient 
Pagan  nations,  and  secondly,  the  Mohammedans  who  con- 
served the  sciences  and  kept  them  alive  while  Christendom 
was  sinking  and  groping  in  the  theological  darkness  of  the 
Middle  Ages— the  Church  driving  the  last  remains  of  learn- 
ing from  the  people.  It  is  not  Christianity  that  gave  sci- 
ence, education  and  art  to  the  world,  and  it  was  only  when 
they  saw  that  the  people  were  determined  to  advance  in 
intelligence  and  mental  culture  that  the  priests  gave  any 
encouragement  in  this  direction.  Science  and  civilization 
exist  in  Christendom  not  by  the  good  offices  of  Christian- 
ity, but  in  spite  of  it. 

I  would  like  to  quote  more  largely  from  the  same  and 
other  authorities,  but  my  letter  is  already  too  long  and  I 

must  hasten  on. 

You  name  Copernicus  and  claim  that  his  scientific  discov- 
eries were  due  to  Christianity.    To  show  how  unjust  your 
claim  is,  it  is  only  necessary  to  state  that  his  discoveries 
were  rejected  by  the  Church.    They  were  declared  to  be  in 
opposition  to  the  Bible  and  to  revelation  ;  and  for  a  century 
afterwards  his  views,  though  of  so  much  importance  and 
BO  true,  were  not  accepted  by  the  Christian  Church,  either 
Catholic  or  Protestant.    Luther  denounced  him  as  an  oU 
fool,  and  said  he  was  trying  to  wp*e<  the  whoU  art  of  astronomy 
and  in  refutation  of  his  views  appealed  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Bible.     This  discovery  of  Copernicus  was  one  of  the 
grandest  ever  made  by  man.   It  ended  a  fallacious  system 
founded  on  pretended  inspiration  from  heaven  to  the  effect 
that  the  earth  is  the  centre  and  principal  part  of  the  Uni- 
verse, and  created  a  new  and  truthful  theory  that  the  sun  is 
the  centre  of  the  solar  system,  and  that  the  earth,  like  the 
other  planets,  revolves  around  it.    Christianity,  however, 
cannot  be  credited  with  the  discovery.    She  opposed  it 

firmly  and  persistently,  and  half  a  century  after  the  discov- 


r 


,"• 


.-I 


lie 


THE  HUMPHKET-BENNErr  DISCUSSION. 


€ry  the  disciple  of  CopefHUIls,  Giordano  Bruno,  was  impris- 
oned in  the  infernal  Inquisition  for  two  years  and  tortured 
in  the  most  cruel  manner,  and  was  finally  burnt  at  th€  stake 
for  his  devotion  to  science  and  truth.  This  was  the  way  in 
vhich  Christianity  fostered  science  and  the  doctrines  of 

i^pernicus. 

Btill  later,  Galileo  had  much  the  same  experience  to  pass 
through.  He  embraced  the  doctrines  of  Copernicus,  and 
made  some  additional  discoveries  in  astronomy,  but  for 
this  the  Christian  Church  pursued  him  and  punished  him 
with  the  most  vindictive  cruelty.  For  holding  and  teach- 
ing that  the  earth  moves  round  the  sun  he  was,  after  he 
had  become  advanced  in  life  and  in  feeble  health,  throwB 
into  the  dungeons  of  the  Inquisition  and  kept  for  years  a 
prisoner  of  the  Church.  The  old  man  was  compelled  to 
forswear,  on  his  knees,  his  honest  convictions  and  to  gife 
the  lie  to  the  great  truth  that  the  earth  is  a  sphere  and  re- 
volves around  the  sun.  Had  he  not  done  this  his  life  proba- 
bly would  have  been  taken.  This  is  another  instance  of  the 
way  in  which  Christanity  fostered  science,  and  now  you 
have  the  assurance  to  claim  for  it  the  honor  of  the  persecu- 
ted man's  discoveries  and  teachings,  when  at  the  peril  of  his 
life  it  compelled  him  to  recant  the  truth  of  his  doctrine. 

Vanini  was  another  scientist— another  disciple  of  Coper- 
nicus  whom  the  Church  persecuted  unto  death  because  he 
dared  to  entertain  views  which  it  did  not  approve.  Oh, 
what  a  patron  of  science  was  the  Christian  Church  for  over 
sixteen  hundred  years!  It  frowned  furiously  upon  every 
effort  in  that  direction. 

I  will  make  one  more  quotation,  and  from  Professor 
Huxley:  **  Extinguished  theologians  lie  about  the  cradle  of 
every  science  as  the  strangled  snakes  beside  that  of  Her- 
cules; and  history  records  that  whenever  science  and 
orthodoxy  have  been  fairly  opposed,  the  latter  has  been 
forced  to  retire  from  the  lists,  bleeding  and  crushed  if  not 
annihilated:  scotched  if  not  slain.    But  orthodoxy  ia  the 


THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


147 


Jl 


Bourbon  of  the  world  of  thought.  It  learns  not,  neither 
can  it  forget;  and  though  at  present  bewildered  and  afraid 
to  move,  it  is  as  willing  as  ever  to  insist  that  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Genesis  contains  the  beginning  and  end  of  sound 
science;  and  to  visit  with  such  petty  thunderbolts  as  its 
half-paralyzed  hands  can  hurl,  those  who  refuse  to  degrade 
nature  to  the  level  of  primitive  Judaism  "  (Lay  Sermons, 

p.  278). 

For  some  sixteen  hundred  years  the  Christian  Church 
held  the  world,  or  so  much  of  it  as  was  under  its  control, 
bound  in  the  chains  of  darkness  and  ignorance.    WhUe 
science  and  learning  were  being  fostered  and  cherished 
by  the  Arabians  and  other  Oriental  nations,  Christianity 
held  a  black  pall  of  superstition  and  degradation  over  its 
entire  domain.  Draper  thus  states  the  fact:  "When  Europe 
was  hardly  more  enlightened  than  CafEraria  is  now.  the 
Saracens  were  cultivating  and   creating   science.    Their 
triumphs  in  philosophy,  mathematics,  astronomy,  chemistry, 
medicine,  proved  to  be  more  durable  and  therefore  more 
important  than  their  military  actions  had  been '"(Intellect- 
ual development,  p.  306).    Christian  nations  were  at  length 
glad  to  receive  from  the  Mohammedan  the  science  and 
learning  which  for  centuries  it  had  been  conserving;  and 
had  not  this  source  been  accessible  it  is  probable  the  night 
of  Christian  ignorance  would  still  be  hanging  over  Europe 
to-day.    Where  the  reign  of  Christianity  has  been  most 
absolute,  the  ignorance  and  degradation  of  the  masses  has 
been  the  most  complete.    Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  Belgium, 
Ireland,  and  Mexico  are  cases  in  point.    The  Reformation 
raised  an  opposition  to  this  rule.    A  spirit  of  rebellion  or 
infUmty  to  the  old  regime  actuated  it.   To  this  extent  it  was 
beneficial  to  the  world.    The  more  infidelity  it  exercised, 
the  more  beneficial  its  results.    Protestantism  is  little  more 
than  the  original  system  of  Christianity  with  a  modicum  of 
Infidelity  blended  with  it.    This  is  what  the  Church  prac- 
tically  declared,  and   it  has  denounced  as  heretics  and 


)• 


"^ 


I' 


i 


I 


1411 


THE  HUlfPHRET-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


149 


Infidels  all  who  embraced  its  schismatic  teachings  and  doc- 
trines. This  rupture  in  the  rule  of  the  Church  doubtless 
opened  the  way  for  an  increase  of  learning  among  the 
masses,  though  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  new  Church  held 
to  ihe  same  miserable  and  debasftig  dogmas  which  charac- 
terized the  old.  It  made  little  or  no  improvement  in  the 
articles  of  belief,  but  that  it  tendtd  to  break  to  some  extent 
the  iron  rule  of  the  Romish  Church  cannot  be  denied. 

For  the  last  two  centuries  Christianity  has  shown  more 
favor  to  science  and  learninij  than  previously.  It  has  been 
compelled  by  the  spirit  of  the  age  to  take  this  course.  The 
priesthood  have  often  evinced  the  disposition  and  ability  to 
yield  to  the  public  demand  when  compelled  to  do  so. 
They  did  so  in  the  matter  of  education,  though  they  used 
every  exertion  to  make  their  old  theological  dogmas  the 
dominant  element.  They  have  ever  sought  to  make  science 
subservient  to  superstition.  The  wily  and  designing  Jes- 
uits have  established  schools  of  learning,  and  numbers  of 
them  have  reached  degrees  of  advanced  scholarship,  but 
their  object  has  been  to  promote  their  own  interests  and 
not  to  elevate  and  enlighten  the  masses.  To  keep  the  peo- 
ple in  subjection  has  ever  been  the  spirit  and  purpose  of 
Christianity. 

You  make  a  formidable  array  of  names  of  Christians  who 
were  men  of  education  and  comparative  science,  and  men- 
tion many  colleges  which  have  been  established  under 
Christian  auspices.  With  a  large  portion  of  these  men 
Christianity  was  a  mere  incident,  not  a  motive.  They  are 
reckoned  Christians  because  they  were  born  and  reared  in 
Christian  countries.  Being  so  born  and  reared  did  not  in- 
crease their  intellectuality  or  love  of  learning.  The  rule 
will  be  found  to  hold  good  that  those  who  have  been  most 
wedded  to  science,  and  who  were  the  most  proficient  In 
its  pursuit,  cared  the  least  for  the  dogmas  of  the  Church. 
From  motives  of  policy,  and  to  secure  personal  safety,  they 
yielded  a  tacit  allegiance  to  its  rale— nothing  moi«. 


*With  an  air  of  triumph  you  ask:  **  Where  are  the  public 
museums  of  art,  science,  the  libraries,  and  institutes  that 
Infidels  have  established?"    If  you  had  taken  a  fair  view  of 
the  field,  I  think  you  would  hardly  propound  such  a  conun- 
drum.   Until  within  the  last  two  centuries  Infidels  and 
scientists  have  been  compelled  to  look  out  closely  for  their 
own  personal  liberty  and  their  lives,  for  the  minions  of  the 
Church  were  after  them  like  bloodhounds  upon  the  track 
of  an    escaping   slave !    What  chance   had   Copernicus, 
Galileo.  Bruno,  Vanini  and  Bcrvetus  to  found  colleges  and 
museums?    Three  of  them  were  burned  at  the  stake  by  the 
strong  arm  of  the  Church,  and  the  others  barely  escaped. 
Universities  and  institutes  are  founded  successfully  only 
under  government  auspices,  or  by  wealthy  corporations. 
Governments  have  been  in  the  hands  of  Christians,  and 
what  chance    had  a  few  ignored,    despised    Infidels   to 
found  such    institutions?    A  spirit  of  irony  must   have 
actuated  you  to  put  such  a  question.    It  is  almost  adding 
insult  to  injury.    But  within  the  last  half  century  a  change 
has  taken  place.    With  the  advance  of  science,  and  the  prog- 
ress of  political  and  mental  liberty,  Infidels  have  grown  a 
little  bolder  and  now  dare  to  speak  aloud  and  say  their 
souls  are  their  own.    For  the  time  and  means  at  hand,  they 
have  done  nobly  in  the  cause  of  science.    With  what  James 
Smithson  did  in  Washington,  Stephen  Girard  in  Philadel- 
phia. Peter  Cooper  in  this  city,  James  Lick  in  Ban  Fran- 
Cisco,  the  London  University  established  fifty  years  ago 
independent  of  Christianity,  and  where  its  dogmas  are  not 
promulgated,  Infidels  can  now  hold  up  their  heads^^with 
a  degree  of  pride  that  Christians  cannot  honestly  feel.    You 
have  doubts  about  the  religious  status  of  James  Smithson. 
You  need  not  have  when  you  are  aware  that  the  matter 
■   of  introducing  and  championing  the  bill   for   the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Smithsonian  Institute  was  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  Infidel  Owen,  just  deceased,  who  ably  engi- 
neered it  through  Congress.    Be  assured,  had  there  beea 


m 


k 


i!' 


160 


THB  mmiUREt-SESnSETt  Discussioir. 


the  slightest  grounds  for  claiming  Smithson  as  a  Christian, 
our  cyclo[jedias  and  biographical  dictionaries  would  have 
so  stated  it  yery  prominently.  Neither  can  I  yield  the 
Tenerable  Peter  Cooper,  who  has  done  more  for  the  peo- 
ple of  this  city,  in  an  educational  point  of  view,  than  a 
thousand  ministers  have  ever  done.  He  is  a  good  man,  but 
he  does  not  believe  in  the  miraculous  qualities  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus;  he  is  not  one  of  your  kind.  He  is  guilty  of 
the  same  grave  'doctrinal  crime  for  which  your  great  leader, 
John  Calvin,  caused  Michael  Servetus  to  be  burned  to  death 
by  a  slow  fire.  Had  Peter  Cooper  lived  at  Geneva  under 
Calvin's  rule,  there  never  would  have  been  a  Cooper 
Institute  established.  No  1  no !  you  cannot  claim  Peter 
Cooper  I    He  has  not  faith  enough  for  you  I 

Who  are  the  leading  men  in  the  world  of  thought  to-day? 
Are  they  the  men  who  believe  that  the  Jewish,  personal, 
anthropomorphic  Jehovah  made  the  entire  Universe  of  suna 
and  worlds  from  nothing,  less  than  six  thousand  years  ago? 
Or  are  they  the  men  who  have  risen  above  all  the  childish 
and  puerile  creeds  of  superstition  and  revelation,  which 
have  bound  the  world  for  thousands  of  years?  The  men 
who  are  leading  and  moulding  the  thought  of  the  world  this 
hour  are  skeptics,  scientists.  Infidels.  They  are  holding  up 
the  light  of  science  in  view  of  the  masses,  and  the  mists  and 
fogB  of  superstition  are  fast  disappearing.  Preceded  by 
Fuch  men  as  Copernicus,  Galileo,  Bruno,  Spinoza,  Goethe, 
Humboldt,  Lyell,  and  others,  Darwin,  Tyndall,  Huxley, 
Spencer,  Wallace,  Helmholtz,  Haeckel,  Schmidt,  Draper, 
Proctor,  and  hosts  of  others,  are  pressing  vigorously  on 
towards  the  temple  of  truth,  rejecting  the  errors  and  follies 
which  the  theologies  of  the  past  have  so  persistently  fast- 
(iiied  upon  the  people  of  the  world. 

Some  of  the  institutions  of  learning  which  you  claim  as 
Christian  can  hardly  be  justly  so  claimed.  Cornell,  for  in- 
staucf,  has  a  very  .diluted  article  of  Christianitjr.  I  am 
credibly  informed  that  every  one  of  the  professois  ^e  un* 


I 


THE  HUUPHRET-BENKETT  DISCXT8SI0N. 


151 


belieyers  in  the  dogmas  of  Christianity,  and  are  readers  of 
Radical  Journals.  Cornell  has  been  denounced  as  an  Infi- 
del institution.  Harvard  is  little  better.  It  does  not  retain 
enough  of  the  original  faith  to  do  very  much  harm.  The 
great  law  of  evolution  is  working  in  the  Christian  Church, 
as  well  as  elsewhere,  and  ultimately  science  and  truth  must 
triumph  over  superstition  and  error. 

Probably  the  most  ridiculous  assumption  you  made  in 
your  last  letter,  is  that  a  belief  in  Christianity  is  conducive 
to  the  inventive  faculty.  If  you  succeed  in  establishing 
that  Christians  are  more  inventive  than  other  portions  of 
the  human  race,  will  it  not  go  far  towards  proving  the 
system  of  Christianity  itself  a  mere  invention  ?  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  you  honestly  maintain  the  opinion  that  a  man  who 
believes  that  a  person  was  once  begotten  by  a  ghost,  that  the 
being  so  begotten  is  as  old  as  his  father ;  that  the  kind 
author  of  the  Universe  could  create  a  burning  hell  to  throw 
millions  upon  millions  of  his  creatures  into  to  suffer  eternal 
agony;  that  to  save  a  limited  number  from  this  fate,  he 
caused  his  only  beloved  Son  to  be  put  to  an  ignominious 
death,  do  you  think  that  believing  this  enables  one  to  get 
up  a  better  steam-boat,  mowing-machine,  improved  bee-hive 
or  patent  churn  than  other  men  ?  The  Chinese  and  the 
Japanese  are  very  mechanical,  inventive  people ;  is  it  be- 
cause they  have  so  much  faith  in  Jesus  and  accept  the  Chris- 
tian dogmas  ?  The  Abysinians  are  a  Christian  nation,  ia 
tbat  what  makes  tbem  such  finished  mechanics?  The  Span- 
iards, Italians,  Portuguese  and  Mexicans  are  very  ardent 
Christians ;  if  your  rule  holds  good,  they  should  there- 
fore be  full  of  mechanical  inventions.    Are  they  ? 

So  far  as  my  observation  has  extended,  inventors  and  dis- 
tinguished mechanics  arc  not  especially  pious  and  full  of 
lath.  They  are  generally  a  practical  sort  of  people,  and 
think  more  of  cog-wheels,  mechanical  forces,  etc.,  than  they 
do  of  Gods  and  Christs,  sanctification  and  imputed  right- 
eouane8«.    The  Christian  Church  probably  distin^ished  it- 


U 


if 


i\ 


« 


Y.. 


ISa  t«B  HtJMf  iniET-BENN2TT  DISCtJSSIOK. 

felf  in  the  field  of  invention  more  in  getting  up  racks, 
thumb-screws,  puHies,  wlicels,  boots,  pincers,  buming-irons. 
and  other  engines  of  torture  without  name,  with  which  to 
mangle  and  kill  thousands  of  the  poor  heretic  wretches 
whom  they  took  under  their  kind  protection  and  inventive 
care.    Could  the  Church  have  obtained  a  patent  for  its  . 
every  invention  of  this  kind,  and  could  have  sold  the  patents 
at  a  good  price,  the  revenue  from  this  source  would  doubt- 
less have  equaled  that  from  the  sale  of  indulgencies.  and 
from  the  pardons  in  advance,  for  the  most  heinous  crimes. 
Pollock  describes  the  pleasure  the  Church  took  in  its  inven- 
tions for  torture  thus : 

••  InQuisltion.  model  most  complete 
Of  perfect  wickedness,  where  deeds  were  done- 
Deeds  I  let  them  ne'er  be  named— and  sat  and  planned 
Deliberately,  and  with  most  musing  pains. 
How  to  extromest  thrill  of  agony. 
The  flesh  and  blood  and  souls  of  men. 
Her  victims,  might  be  wrought;  and  when  she  saw 
New  tortures  of  her  laboring  fancy  born, 
8he  leaped  for  joy.  and  made  great  haste  to  try 
Their  force,  well  pleased  to  hear  a  deeper  groan." 

Tou  have  evoluted  a  long  distance  from  where  your 
brethren  of  the  Church  stood  two  or  three  centuries  ago. 
You  claim  now  that  all  these  useful  inventions  belong  to  the 
Church  while  your  predecessors  consigned  them  to  the 
dfivU.  Hundreds  of  the  inventions  which  you  now  claim 
for  the  Church  used  to  be  traced  directly  to  his  Satanic 
Majesty.  Even  the  art  of  printing,  which  you  fain 
would  monopolize,  has  many  and  many  a  time  by  your 
former  brethren  been  denounced  as  the  work  of  the  devil  and 
a  device  of  helL  Gutenberg  and  Faust,  when  they  in- 
vented printing,  were  said  to  be  in  league  with  the  "Evil 
One."  Leading  bishops  and  priests  of  the  Christian  Church 
did  all  they  could  to  suppress  the  art  and  denounced  it  at 
*  groat  enemy  to  tlie  Ohurok    They  perceived  that  Upofr" 


I' 

1'^ 


THE  nUMPnUET-BBinrETT  DISCTJSMOK. 


ltd 


sesscd  facilities  for  conveying  intelligence  to  the  massc8> 
and  they  feared  its  influence.  William  Tyndale,  a  man  of 
note,  was,  in  1536,  by  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  burned 
at  the  stake  for  translating  and  printing  the  Bible.  I  think 
it  was  Gov.  Berkeley  of  Virginia,  an  eminently  pious  Chris- 
tian who,  since  the  settlement  of  this  country,  thanked 
God  that  there  was  not  a  printing-pre^i  in  the  whole  State, 
and  he  prayed  that  there  might  not  be. 

In  like  manner  hundreds  of  other  inventions  were  piously 
denounced  as  being  the  works  of  the  devil.  In  this  cate- 
gory may  be  placed  the  steam-engine,  lightning-rods,  the 
telegraph,  railroads,  reaping-machines,  sewing-machines, 
friction-matches,  etc.,  etc.  Even  your  pious  Church  breth 
ren,  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland,  for  many  years  persist- 
ently fought  the  use  of  the  fanning-mill  for  cleaning  their 
rye,  oats  and  beans,  and  called  the  wind  it  engendered 
•*  the  devil's  wind."  Is  it  not  amusing  to  see  you  now  turn 
around  and  claim  all  these  inventions  as  the  special  prop- 
erty of  the  Church  ?  Verily,  who  is  it  sitting  on  the  back 
seat  of  the  tar  of  progress  throwing  out  hand-bills  on 
Avhich  is  inscribed,  **See  what  we  are  doing  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  science"?  I  fancy,  Bro.  Humphrey,  I  see 
you  among  the  number. 

Yuu  recite  a  great  number  of  names  of  inventors,  artists, 
etc.,  who  lived  and  died  in  Christian  countries.  Tou  could 
have  increased  this  list  greatly  by  copying  the  names  of 
artisans  and  mechanics  from  the  New  York  Directory. 
Ninc-tentbs  of  these  would  doubtless  be  found  tacit  believ- 
ers in  Christianity,  and  they  would  serve  to  swell  the  list 
greatly.  You  might  with  equal  propriety  claim  Christian- 
ity as  the  foster  parent  of  brothels,  gambling  hells,  rum- 
holes,  lotteries,  policy-shops,  stock-gambling  oflSces,  horse- 
races, concert-cellars,  etc. ,  etc. ,  for  you  would  find  a  large 
proportion  of  those  who  conduct  these  establishments,  as 
well  as  their  patrons,  believers  in  the  Christian  religion, 
«nd  they  are  Just  as  honestly  entitled  to  be  counted  and 


fl 


10f 


THE  HimPHHST-BEKNETT  DISCXTSSIOir: 


I* 
'■;t. 


.1 


claimed  by  you  as  the  inTentors,  painters,  sculptors,  poeti, 
printers,  book-sellers,  etc.,  etc.    I  am  disposed  to  yield  to- 
you  all  that  is  Justly  yours* 

You  name  several  Freethought  and  Spirituaiistic  journals 
and  intimate  tliat  they  hare  done  little  or  nothing  in  the 
cause  of  science  They  certainly  have  done  something  in- 
that  direction,  and  have  at  least  labored  to  do  their  duty  in: 
in  unpopular  cause,  each  according  to  its  ability.  They 
will,  I  think,  compare  very  favorably  in  the  direction  of 
being  teachers  of  science  with  Thd  Obaerver,  The  Shangdist^ 
The  Christian  at  Work,  The  Christian  Union,  Working 
Church,  and  the  four  hundred  other  pious  Christian  papers^ 
published  in  this  country.  Are  they  par  excellence  teach- 
ers of  science?  If  teaching  Christianity  and  teaching. 
science  are  the  same,  what  a  vast  amount  of  science  the 
sixty-five  thousand  clergymen  of  the  United  States  alone 
ought  to  be  able  to  present  to  the  people!  With  so  many 
teachers  of  science,  every  individual  in  the  country  over  fif- 
teen years  of  age  ought  to  be  well  versed  in  its  great; 
trulhs.  But  it  is  not  the  case,  for  all  the  science  they 
all  teach  can  be  put  into  a  very  small  space.  $200,000,000' 
are  paid  annually  for  the  promulgation  of  antique  mytb» 
ftnd  obsolete  dogmas,  and  the  truths  of  science  form  but  a 
amall  share  of  their  instructions. 

I  could  hardly  repress  a  smile  when  I  saw  that  you 
claimed  the  dictionary  as  a  Christian  bequest.  Why,  there 
were  dictionaries  in  the  world  before  a  Christian  was 
thought  of.  Besides,  the  author  of  our  dictionary  and  the 
old  spelling-book  was,  during  a  part  of  his  life  a  skeptic, 
especially  when  he  wrote  the  spelling-book  (see  Memoir  in 
Dictionary).  Why  do  you  not  claim  the  rule  of  addition 
and  the  multiplication  table  as  Christian  institutions?  Tou 
could  do  so  with  equal  justice  with  much  that  you  have 
claimed. 

A.t  the  close  of  your  last  letter  you  draw  a  very  pretty 
pictoie  of  the  Car  of  FiQgsess  passing  by,  and  of  a  d«)ad-head 


mt  HtTMPHREY  -  BBNN«t-r  mSCUSSIOK. 


155 


wishing  a  ride,  and  of  his  clambering  up,  taking  a  back 
seat  and  at  once  throwing  out  his  handbills,  claiming  great 
honor  for  what  he  has  done  for  science  and  the  elevation  of 
mankind.  This  is  all  very  pretty,  only  you  have  made 
a  mistake  in  the  individual.  His  name  instead  of 
Infidelity  is  Christianity— Sknoiher  instance  of  where  you 
have  claimed  too  much.  In  view  of  the  manner  in  ^hich 
the  Church  persistently  stifled  the  aspirations  of  mankind 
for  mental  liberty  and  the  truths  of  science  for  fifieen 
hundred  years,  and  only  when  compelled  was  induced  to 
recognize  them,  it  is  very  refreshing  to  now  see  it  mount 
the  back  seat  and  swing  its  banner,  claiming  thousands 
of  years  devotion  to  science.    Yes;  it  is  very  amusing. 

In  closing  let  me  make  one  more  quotation  from  IngersoU 
«*  Christianity  has  always  opposed  every  forward  movement 
of  the  human  race.  Across  the  highway  of  proerress  it  has 
always  been  building  breastworks  of  bibles,  tracts,  com- 
mentaries,  prayer-books,  creeds,  dogmas  and  platforms, 
and  at  every  advance  the  Christians  have  gathered  together 
behind  these  heaps  of  rubbish  and  shot  the  poisoned  arrows 
of  malice  at  the  soldiers  of  freedom." 

Pardon  me  for  my  great  length.  To  answer  your  general- 
izations in  detail  necessarily  requires  considerable  space. 
I  have  not  aimed  at  aught  else  but  to  answer  the  points 
you  raised.  There  is  much  more  I  would  like  to  say  bear- 
ing upon  the  same  subject,  but  must  defer  it  for  the  present. 
I  am  very  truly  yours,  J).  M  Bennett. 


MR.     HVMPHRBT. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Bennett,  D»ar  Sir:  I  wish,  first  of  all,  to 
state  that  I  did  not,  in  my  last  letter,  assert  that  any  instl- 
tution  or  individual  was  of  a  Christian  character,  until  I  had 
examined  the  very  best  accessible  authorities  on  the  eub- 
Ject    I  did  not   follow  traditions  or   newspaper   ilemi*. 


/ 


i 


m 


TEM  RCriffFHBBT-BBNKBTT  DlSCUSSIOir. 


Keither  did  I  reckon  any  one  a  "  Christian  because  ho  was 
born  and  reared  in  a  Christian  country."  Throughout  this 
discussion  I  have  stuck  rigidly  to  the  terms  of  our  propo- 
sitions, and  to  the  standard  definitions  of  words. 

Yon  remind  me  of  a  class  of  men  who  rejected  John  be- 
cause he  did  not  eat  and  drink  like  other  people,  and  then 
rejected  Christ  because  he  did  eat  and  drink  like  other  peo- 
ple (Matt  xi.  16-19).  You  have  contended  that  the  f  ramers  of 
the  Constitution  must  have  been  Infidels,  because  they  ex- 
pressed no  Constitutional  partiality  to  any  form  of  religion, 
and  you  have  insisted  that  Franklin  was  an  Infidel,  though 
his  writings  abound  in  religious  sentiments,  though  he  de- 
clared himself  a  '*  Protestant  of  the  Church  of  England," 
and  a  "sincere  lover  of  social  worship/'  and  though  he 
made  a  motion  for  daily  prayers  in  the  very  Convention 
that  brought  the  Constitution  into  existence.  The  Consti- 
tution is  unsectarian ;  but  it  is  not  irreligious.  Immedi- 
ately after  its  adoption,  Washington  and  Adams,  with  no 
precedent  to  press  them  to  it,  made  annual  Thanksgiving 
Proclamations.  I  repeat,  then,  the  language  of  Judge  Story, 
that  none  could  hold  Christianity  in  more  reverence  than 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution. 

In  your  last  letter  you  show  several  individuals  in  a  false 
light.  What  authority  had  you  for  saying  James  Smitbson 
was  a  *' Freethinker"?  None  whatever.  As  I  have  said 
already,  the  circumstantial  evidence  is  all  the  other  way. 
For  instance,  he  graduated  in  the  University  of  Oxford,  at 
ft  time  (1786)  when  that  institution  conferred  no  degree  on 
anybody  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Established  Church 
(See  Am.  Cyclopedia,  Art  "University'*).  Where  is  your 
proof  that  he  was  a  lying  hypocrite  at  that  time,  or  that 
he  changed  his  views  afterwards  t 

I  cannot  find  that  Robert  Dale  Owen  had  much  to  do 
with  the  establishment  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution. 
Neither  Johnson's  nor  the  American  Cyclopedia  mentions 
liis  nain^  in  that  connection.    It  was  the  Hon.  Richard 


THE  HXJMPHREV-BEIJNETT  DISCUSSION. 


157 


Rush  who  prosecuted  the  claim  to  Smithson's  bequest;  be- 
fore the  British  government.  Prof.  Joseph  Henry— a  most 
estimable  scientist  and  Christian— has  been  at  the  head  of 
the  Institution  ever  since  1846. 

Peter  Cooper  "  is  not  one  of  your  kind."  He  would 
scorn  the  idea  of  being  a  disciple  of  "  Tom  Paine."  Un- 
solicited, he  offered  the  Great  Hall  of  the  Union  to  the  ser- 
vices of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  1870— all  free  of 
charge.  He  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Delegates,  wherein  he 
said  that  "Christianity  is  in  Tealiiyatrue  scienee  of  life**; 
**  that  he  (the  godly  man)  is  guided  by  that  great  prineiiiie 
that  controlled  the  life  of  Christ,**  and  much  more  in  the  same 
vein.  Did  Mr.  Cooper  ever  offer  his  Hall  to  an  Infidel 
Convention  ?  Did  he  ever  say  that  Infidelity  is  in  reality 
a  true  science  of  life  ?  No.  He  accepts  the  Bible  as  the 
inspired  word  of  God.  He  belongs,  therefore,  to  my  aide 
of  the  proposition  under  discussion. 

Ezra  Cornell,  the  founder  of  the  University  that  bears 
his  name,  was  a  Quaker.  The  other  leading  benefactors  of 
that  institution— Hiram  Sibley,  John  McQraw,  Dean  Sage, 
Henry  W.  Sage,  President  White— are  all  thorough  believ- 
ers in  the  Christian  religion.  I  got  this  information  from 
Messrs.  Henry  W.  Sage,  67  Wall  street,  A.  B.  Cornell,  16 
East  42d  street,  and  H.  W.  Sibley,  21  Courtlandt  street. 
Nor  is  Cornell  University  conducted  on  the  godless  princi- 
ple. There  are  prayers  in  the  chapel  every  morning.  Mr. 
Dean  Sage's  donation  was  made  expressly  to  furnish  the 
students  with  **  Evangelical  preaching,"  as  Mr.  Sage  him- 
self put  it,  or  with  *'  lectures  on  general  theology  by  divines 
of  different  denominations,"  as  the  American  Cyclopedia 
expresses  it.  Prof.  Felix  Adler  is  not  **  wanted  "  there  any 
more.    So  you  see  that  Cornell  is  in  no  sense  '  an  Infidel 

institution.'* 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  London  University.    I  was 
surprised  to  see  you  laying  any  claim  to  it    I  would  like  to 
your  assertion  backed  with  some  proof. 


i 


158 


THE  iimiPiiRiT-BiEirNSTT  Discusaioir. 


I 


1   k 


Tou  are  hardly  better  aa  a  Bible  critic  than  as  a  delineator 
of  character.  You  regret  that  I  did  not  take  more  trouble  to 
harmonize  the  conclusions  of  modern  science  with  the  teach- 
ings of  Scripture.  That  reconciliation  is  by  no  means  im- 
possible. There  is  no  conflict  between  the  Bible,  rightly 
understood,  and  Science,  properly  so  called.  But  it  is  as  un- 
desirable as  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  Bible  with  every 
whim,  vagary,  and  balderdash,  that  every  scribbler  persists 
in  calling  science.  If  you  are  disposed  to  read  in  that  line, 
you  have  access  to  such  works  as  Kurtz*  "  Bibel  und  As- 
tronomic"; O.  M.  Mitchell's  "Astronomy  of  the  Bible"; 
Chalmers*  "Astronomical  Discourses**;  Hugh  Miller*s 
"Testimony  of  the  Rocks";  Dana*s  '* Manual  of  Geol- 
ogy," 1875.  pp.  765-770;  Dawson's  "  Nature  and  the  Bible  "; 
Hitchcock's  "  Geology,*'  1853,  pp.  284r-315  ;  Duke  of  Ar- 
gylFs  "  Reign  of  Law  ";  McCosh'  "  Christianity  and  Positiv- 
ism"; Morris  '**  Science  and  the  Bible";  Mozley's  "Bamp- 
ton  Lectures  on  Miracles,'*  1865  ;  WinchelPs  "Doctrine  of 
Evoldtion/'  and  "Reconciliation  of  Science  and  Religion," 
and  many  other  works  of  the  kind,  with  which  everybody 
ought  to  be  familiar.  ^ 

Ton  show  an  inclination  to  dispose  of  some  Bible  char- 
acters by  calling  them  •* myths.**  Are  you  not  aware  that 
the  " mythical  theory'*  is  going  out  of  fashion  among  the 
"thinkers"  of  Germany!  That  little  critical  farce  is 
about  played  ontv  Whately  has  shown  in  a  book  called 
"Historic  Doubts  Relative  to  Napoleon,"  that  the  myth- 
ical theory  would  apply  to  Buonaparte  with  just  as  much 
force  as  to  Solomon,  Daniel  or  Job.  Why,  Sir,  there  is 
as  strong  a  probability  that  Thomas  Paine  was  a  **  myth  " 
as  there  is  that  Moses  was.  The  accounts  of  his  life  are 
very  "contradictory."  His  career  was  full  of  "inherent 
improbabilities. "  Nobody  k  nows  to-day  where  his  reputed 
remains  are  1  Prove  that  Paine  was  not  a  "  myth,"  and  I 
will  show  by  the  same  process  of  reasoning  that  the  promi- 
nent characters  of  the  Bible  were  no  fiotiona. 


TKB  HUmPHREY-BENNBTT  DTSCUSSION. 


159 


The  critics  who  believe  that  the  book  of  Job  was  written 
fcy  a  Hebrew,  are  not  all  as  old  as  you  say.  Many  of  them 
have  lived  until  quite  recently ;  and  several  of  them  are 
•still  living.  Your  disUnction  between  the  ^ook  and  the 
name  of  Job  looks  more  like  a  loop-hole  than  anything 
«l6e.  What  is  Job  apart  from  the  book!  Who  thinks  of 
Hamlet  without  the  play  ?  As  the  book  of  Job  was  well 
Jinown  among  the  Hebrews  many  centuries  before  Christ. 
Jthe  book  and  the  man  must  have  always  gone  together  in 

tthe  Jewish  mind. 

I  am  afraid  you  have  not  read  the  work  of  that  eminent 
scientist.  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  entitled  "  Observations  upon 
<he  Prophecies  of  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John." 
li  is  the  product  of  the  same  mind  as  the  "Principia."  A 
-diligent  study  of  it  might  modify  your  views  of  Daniel's 
date  and  real  existenoe. 

You  say  Bolomotf  e  sin  did  not'consist  in  hie  many  marri- 
:age8  ^  Have  you  forgotten  that  it  was  unlawful  for  the  Is- 
raeliles  to  marry  '*  strange,"  that  is,  heathen'wives  t  Have 
you  not  observed  that  Solomon  is  said  to  have  *"  sinned  by 
4hese  things"  (Neh.  xiii,  26,  27)?  You  are  certamly  not 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  David  himself  looked  upon  hia 
adultery  as  an  "  evil,'*  a  "  sin,"  an  -  iniquity  "  and  a  "  trans- 
^resslon"  (Pss.  xixii.  and  li). 

You  stick  to  what  Dr.  Smith,  Classical  Examiner  hi  the 
University  of  London,  calls  "the  mlffor  objection"  m 
regard  to  the  Hebrews  -  borrowing  "  from  their  Egyptian 
masters.  Dr.  Smith  adds:  -  The  word  « borrow '  should  be 
*  ask  '  There  was  no  promise  or  intention  of  repayment. 
The  jewels  were  given  for  fa^  <Ex.  xii:  8^,  as  well  as  fear; 
and  they  were  a  flight  recompense  for  all  of  whidi  tlw 
Egyptians  had  robbed  the  Israelites  during  a  century  of 
bondage"  (Old  Testament  History,  1869,  p.  153).  Perhaps 
the  word  "stripped,"  employed  in  the  Douay  Version,  cor- 
wsponds  with  the  original  better  than  "spoiled,'  m  the 
iweseat  sense  ^f  that  word. 


» t 


>  L 

-I!: 

it! ;  • 


if 


100 


THE  HUMPHRET-BENNLTT  DISCUSSIOIT. 


You  are  still  unable  to  distinguish  faith  from  ** blind  ere* 
dulity."  Faith  is  trust  Id  that  which  is  trustworthy- 
credence  of  that  which  is  credible.  It  is  confidence  in 
reliable  testimony.  It  is  "nidenu  of  things  not  seen/'  in 
Ihe  same  way  that  Le  Yerrier^s  computations  were  an 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  Neptune  before  it  had  been 
diflcoyered. 

You  say  incorrectly  that  the  word  '*  faith/'  occurs  but 
once  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  to  be  found  at  least  time 
in  King  James*  Translation  (Deut.  xxxii:20;  Hab.  ii:  4);  and 
Ihe  word  so  rendered  in  these  passages  appears  more  than 
tioeniy  times  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  (Taylor's  Hebrew  Con- 
cordance)w  There  is  nothing  like  being  uceurate,  Mr.  Bennett. 

You  hsTO  said  more  than  once  that  Palestine  contains  no 
relics  of  an  ancient  eiTiliiatlon.  Your  informant  is  some 
"Great  Unknown."  In  rebuttal  of  Mr.  '* Great  Unknown's  " 
testimony  I  will  cite  the  authority  of  that  celebrated  scholar, 
traveler,  antiquarian^  and  educator,  Dr.  Edward  Robinson. 
As  late  as  1852  he  found  in  Jerjsalem  **  beveled  stones/' 
•* viaducts/*  "aqueducts,**  ** fortresses/*  ** ancient  arches/* 
*' massive  ancient  chambers,**  and  many  other  **  remains  of 
antiquity**  (Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine  and  in  the  Adja- 
cent Regions,  Boston,  1867,  toI.  iii.  pp.  161-263).  Thus» 
in  spite  of  tbe  depredations  of  the  Infidel  Mohammedans, 
something  still  survives  to  attest  the  former  existence  of  an 
advanced  civiliaation. 

Just  as  I  expected  I  You  give  the  "  bloody  shirt  **  another 
shake.  You  reiterate  the  usual  aecounts  of  ecclesiastical 
persecutions  and  oppositions  to  science.  Let  us  look  at  the 
facts  of  the  case: 

1.  The  Greek  Church  has  never  arrayed  herself  against 
learuing  and  science.  Dr.  Draper  exonerates  her  in  these 
words:  *'  It  has  always  met  it  (science)  with  welcome.  It 
has  observed  a  reverential  attitude  to  truth,  from  whatever 
quarter  it  might  come  **  (Conflict  between  Religion  and  Sci- 
ence, 187S^  Preface). 


'I 


THE  HTJMPHREY-BKNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


mi 


%  Protestantism  has  never  disfavored  the  progress  of 
science.  This,  too.  Dr.  Draper  admits  (ibid).  A  few  indi- 
viduals may  have  shown  it  some  dislike;  but  no  Protestant 
demmination  has  ever  taken  measures  to  obstruct  its  ad- 
vancement. On  the  contrary,  Protestants  have  given,  and 
given  munificently,  of  their  time,  means,  and  influence,  to 
establish  institutions  of  learning,  and  to  diffuse  knowledge 
among  the  masses.  It  was  the  knell  of  the  Reformation 
that  awakened  science  from  her  lethargy.  Dr.  Draper  says 
that  «*  modern  science  is  the  legitimate  sister— indeed,  it  is 
the  twin-sister  of  the  Reformation**  (Conf.  bet.  Rel.  and 
Sci.,  p.  853).  He  should  have  added  that,  Jacob-like,  Sci- 
was' enabled  to  come  forth  into  the  light  of  day  by  clinging 
to  the  heel  of  the  Reformation.  The  twins  have  been  most 
thrifty  and  intimate  ever  since. 

8.  The  only  organized  opponent  to  science  has  been 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Now,  I  am  not  a  member 
of  that  Church.  I  cannot  accept  all  her  dogmas.  I  dis- 
approve of  her  policy  in  many  respects.  But  there  were 
circumstances  that,  to  some  extent,  extenuated  her  faults 

imd  crimes: 

(1)  Catholic  opposition  to  science  was  more  an  error  of 
the  head  than  of  the  heart  Prof.  Huxley  admits  this  in 
one  of  his  Lay  Sermons. 

(2)  There  has  always  been,  as  there  is  to-day,  so  much 
poor  stuff  passing  under  the  misnomer,  "  Science,**  that 
suspicion,  and  shy  acceptance  of  It,  and  that  only  after 
close  scrutiny  and  careful  sifting,  Is  quite  excusable.  There 
may  be  wheat  in  the  pile  on  the  threshing-floor.  But  that 
l8  no  reason  why  everybody  should  be  required  to  gulp  it 
down  with  "blind  credulity  "—bran,  shorts,  chaff,  cockle, 

thistle,  smut,  and  all. 

(8)  Even  through  the  Dark  Ages,  the  Catholic  Church  kept 
in  existence  "Schools,**  where  the  human  mind  was  made 
strong  by  a  thorough  discipline.  The  intellect  of  Coperni- 
cus and  Galileo  was  no  sport  of  Nature.    It  was  the  natural 


"' 


i.'l 


102 


THE  HmfPHRKT-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


S 


product  of  a  mental  training  that  had  been  continued  when 
Science  was  at  its  lowest  ebb. 

(4).  Before,  and  especially  since,  the  Reformation,  the 
Catholic  Church  has  done  a  great  deal  for  Science.  Hux 
ley  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  Jesuits  were  the 
"  best  school-masters »'  of  Descartes*  day  (Lay  Sermons, 
p.  331).  The  American  Cyclopedia  says  of  the  Benedic- 
tines: "During  the  middle  ages  they  were  the  great 
preservers  of  ancient  learning,  and  assiduous  cultivators 
of  science  and  art,  copying  and  preserving  the  classicg, 
the  Scriptures,  and  writings  of  the  early  Fathers.  For  cem* 
luries  they  were  the  principal  teachers  of  youth  ifi 
their  Colleges  and  Schools  "  (See  Articles.  **  Benedictines  " 
and  "  Library ").  We  must  not  forget  that  Copernixjus, 
Galileo,  Pascal,  Columbus,  Descartes,  and  a  host  of  other 
eminent  philosophers,  lived  and  died  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Read  Sir  David  Brewster's  "  Martyrs  of  Science,"  and  you 
will  find  that  Galileo,  Tycho  Brahe,  and  Kepler  received 
encouragements  from  leveral  ecclesiastics.  The  great  life- 
work  of  Copernicus  was  printed  "  at  the  entreaty  of  Cardie 
nal  Schomberg  (Draper's  Conf.  bet.  Rel.  and  Sci.,  p.  168> 
Galileo  received  permission  from  the  Pope  to  publish  his 
discoveries.  And  when  his  book  appeared,  it  was  attacked 
more  fiercely  by  the  philosophers  than  by  the  theologians. 
The  mathematieiana  said  Amen  to  the  verdict  of  the  Inqui- 
sition (Chambers*  Biography,  London,  1855,  p.  9). 

As  a  matter  of  course,  you  told  us  about  the  destruction 
of  the  Alexandrian  Library.  I  am  glad  you  did;  for  you 
thereby  nave  me  an  opportunity  to  tell  the  whole  truth  about 
that  unfortunate  affair.  Julius  Caesar  was  the  first  to  set  it 
on  fire.  He  burned  nunv  than  a  half  of  it  (Draper's  Conflict 
between  Religion  and  Science,  pp.  21, 103).  It  was  next  dli* 
persed  by  Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  He  de- 
stroyed U89  than  the  remainder  of  it.  He  was  •*  enjoined  ** 
to  do  it  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius  (ibid,  pp.  54,103).  Its 
destiuction  was  completed  by  Amrou,  Lieutenant  of  tbo 


THB  miMPfiBET-BSNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


ie3 


Khallf  Omar.  John  Philoponus— a  Christian  scholar- 
interceded  for  it,  but  in  vain  (ibid  p.  103).  Gibbon  gives 
the  deUilA.  But  these  salient  facts  are  sufficient.  They 
diow  that  the  Christians  burned  the  Alexandrian  Library 
O71C0,  and  that  the  Infidels  hurned  it  tfoiee.  The  Ii^dels, 
Uierefore,  burned /<!ir  more  of  it  than  the  Christians. 

It  was  to  to  be  expected  that  you  would  also  go  over 
the  story  of  Hypatia  and  Cyril.  I  will  not  reply  in  your 
style,  and  say  Hypatia  was  a  "myth.**  I  will  admit  that 
her  treatment  was  most  disgraceful  But  the  rnoHw  was 
not  the  extinguishment  of  science,  but  the  removal  of  a 
woman  who  was  supposed  to  be  too  intimate  with  Orestes^ 
prefect  of  Alexandria,  and  who,  as  it  was  imagined,  alien- 
ated his  affections  from  the  Archbishop  (Smith's  Classical 
Dictionary).  It  is  notorious  that  the  most  accomplished 
women  of  the  period  between  Socrates  and  Cyril  were 
courtezans  (Lecky*s  History  of  European  Morals,  Vol.  il, 
pp.  308-314).  Bo  the  truth  as  it  may  about  Hypatia,  it  is 
plain  that  Uie  ol^ect  aimed  at  in  her  massa€re  was  not  the 
extermination  of  science. 

I  trust  the  foregoing  remarks  will  do  something  to  correct 
the  Infidel  catechism.  I  protest  against  the  customary 
lumping  of  all  Christians,  and  saying  they  are  opposed  to 
science.  This  is  true  of  only  one  of  the  three  grand  divis- 
ions of  Christendom,  Would  it  be  just  to  say  that  aU 
Infidels  are  "terrible,**  and  hostile  to  learning,  simply  be- 
cause the  French  "Freethinkers"  instigated  the  •* Reign  of 
Terror,"  and  suppressed  the  University  of  Paris  ?  Would 
it  be  right  to  say  that  all  skeptics  are  licentious,  because  the 
freethinking  "Free-lovers**  wish  to  abolish  marriageT 
Certainly  not.  On  the  same  principle  it  is  wrong,  out- 
rageously wrong,  to  say  that  the  Christian  religion  is  hostile 
to  science,  when  there  is  only  one  species  of  it  so. 

But  have  scientific  men  never  persecuted  one  another? 
Have  they,  too,  not  resisted  scientific  innovations  ?  They 
certainly  have.    It  was  at  edentieta  more  than  as  mere  theolo- 


M 


TBS  mrMPHBXT-BSNHXrT  DISCUSBIOir. 


THB  HUMPHBET-BENNfiTX  DISCUSSION. 


166 


n- 


giaot  that  Copemicas*  and  GalUeo's  cotemporaries  con- 
demned tbe  heliocentric  theory.  They  stood  up  in  defense 
of  what  science  had  hitherto  tavght.  They  made  their  great 
mistake  in  supposing  that  science  is  crer  absolutely  correct, 
infallible,  and  unchangeable.  When  Hanrey  announced  the 
true  theory  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  the  doeUfn  were 
the  last  to  welcome  the  discovery.  When  Jenner  gave  vao» 
cination  to  the  world,  the  dactara  were  the  tardiest  to  appre- 
ciate and  commend  it.  When  Cotton  Mather  was  tryini? 
to  introduce  inoculation  in  New  England,  who  opposed 
him  with  all  their  might  ?  The  doeton  again  (Sparks*  Am. 
Biography,  vol.  vi,  p.  814)1  Who  are  to^ay  more  hateful 
to  each  other  than  the  different  *'  Schools"  of  Medicine  f 
But  the  doctors  have  always  been  regarded  as  icientific  men. 
When  Franklin  announced  his  discoveries  in  electricity, 
Abbe  Nollet  did  all  he  could  to  bring  discredit  on  them. 
(Parton's  Life  of  Franklin,  vol.  i,  p.  298).  Did  Newton 
give  his  great  ideas  to  the  world  without  opposition  f  No. 
Even  such  eminent  scientists  as  Hooke  and  Huygens  perse, 
cuted  him.  Newton  himself  used  that  very  word,  **  perse- 
cuted" (Brewster's  Life  of  Newton,  revised  by  Lynn,  1875, 
p.  51).  How  the  engineers  fought  the  improvements  of 
George  Stephenson !  Huxley  is  out  of  humor  with  Prof. 
Owen  because  he  denies  that  the  Ape  is  possessed  of  a  "poste- 
rior lobe,"  and  a  '^hippocampus  minor."  Prof.  Owen's  of- 
ense  is  iiideed  a  grave  one— ignoring  the  infallibility  of  Prof. 
Huxley!  But  a  "liberal  scientist"  should  not  lose  bis 
temper  under  any  circmnstances  (See  Huxley's  Evidences 
as  to  Man's  Place  in  Nature,  N.  Y.,  1868,  pp.  188-8). 
Clergymen  are  not  allowed  to  cross  the  threshold  of  Girard 
College.  So  it  seems  that  Infidels  are  not  always  so  mighty 
"liberal "after  all.  They,  too,  can  set  up  proscriptions 
and  interdicts  whenever  they  get  the  chance. 

The  greatest  enemies  of  Science  and  Art  are  Scienc# 
and  Art  The  footman  opposed  the  horseman;  the  horse- 
pan  opposed  the  sta^^e-coichi  the  stage-coach  opposed  the 


■team-engine.  Slow  transit  has  always  been  an  enemy  to 
"  rapid  transit."  The  Telegraph  has  always  been  a  subjecjt 
of  contention  and  litigation.  Every  great  improvement  has 
sent  a  multitude  into  bankruptcy.  The  car  of  Progress, 
as  it  moves  along,  ruins  many  a  trade,  impoverishes  many  an 
industrious  workman,  and  crushes  to  the  earth  many  a 
handsome  fortune.  How  many  a  poor  Jennie  did  the 
spinning-jenny  throw  out  of  employment  I  Thus  the  mo- 
tives for  showing  indiilerence  to  Art  and  Science  are  not  all 
religious  by  any  means. 

The  progress  of  Civilization  is  inevitably  slow.    Science, 
like  the  Church,  must  arrive  at  the  Heaven  of  her  parity 
and  triumph  "  through  great  tribulations."    She  must  get 
rid  of  her  dross.    As  the  iceberg  breaks  from  the  Northern 
shores,  and  floats  southward,  cold,  creaking,  imposing  in 
appearance  as  it  goes,  resisted  now  by  surface,  now  by 
under  currents,  in  the  meantime,  however,  melting  grad- 
ually awty,  until  at  last  it  disappears,  leaving  a  small 
deposit  on  the  Newfoundland  banks,  so  the  Human  Mind 
detaches  from  the  shores  of  the  boundless  Unknown,  now 
an  "hypothesis,"  and  then  a  "theory,"  which  is  borne,  often 
slowly,  and  through  many  resistances,  toward  those  lati- 
tudes where  bulky  error  vanishes,  and  where  only  the 
residuum  of  Truth  remains.    These  modern  speculations, 
erroneously  termed  "  science,"  are  only  icebergs.    They  are 
vast  in  the  dimensions  of  their  pretensions.    They  seem 
bright— with  borrowed  light.    They  may  wreck  the  bark  of 
many  a  weak  one's  faith.    But  the  Christian  insists  that  it 
would  be  unwise  to  build  a  house  on  any  of  these  icebergs. 
He  believes,  moreover,  that  their  destiny,  for  the  most  part, 
IB— disappearance.    But  he  will  be  among  the  first  to  accept 
the  modicum  of  truth  which,  it  is  hoped,  some  of  them 
will  leave  behind. 

I  will  now  submit  the  case  to  the  reader.  I  have  endeav' 
ored  to  show  that  the  spirit  of  the  Scriptures  is  friendly  to 
genuine  Science;  that  believers  in  the  Bible  have  given  to 


t-- 


/ 


180 


THE  HUMFHREY-BBKMBTT  DIBOXT88IOH. 


the  world  almost  all  its  institutionB  of  learning,  libraries, 
museums,  discoveries,  and  inventions;  that  only  one  out  of 
the  three  grand  divisions  of  Christendom  has  offered  sys- 
tematic resistance  to  science  and  learning;  and  that  even 
the  Catholic  Church  has  done  infinitely  more  for  both  than 
any  Infidel  organization  that  was  ever  formed.  I  know 
that  my  work  is  incomplete.  Many  things  have  been  left 
unsaid.  But  it  is  to  be  hoped  the  reader  will  take  these 
scanty  outlines  as  prompters  to  a  more  thorough  investiga- 
tion of  the  subject. 

Yours  very  sincerely,        Q.  H.  Humfhbet. 


!  1 


BIR.    BENNBTT. 

Rev.  G.  H.  Humphrey,  Bear  Sir:  I  see  it  is  hard  for 
you  to  give  up  the  convention  which  framed  our  National 
Constitution,  and  which  was  so  very  pious  and  Christian 
that  that  instrument  utterly  ignores  God,  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  Bible— a  Convention  which,  in  the  words  of  Ingersoll, 
••  knew  that  to  put  God  in  the  Constitution  was  to  put  man 
out.  They  knew  that  the  recognition  of  a  Deity  would 
be  seized  upon  by  fanatics  and  zealots  as  a  pretext  for  de- 
stroymg  the  liberty  of  thought.  They  knew  the  terrible 
history  of  the  Church  too  well  to  place  in  her  keeping,  or 
in  the  keeping  of  her  God,  the  sacred  rights  of  man.  They 
intended  that  all  should  have  the  right  to  worship  or  not  to 
worship  ;  that  our  laws  should  make  no  distinction  on  ac- 
count of  creed.  They  intended  to  found  and  frame  a  gov- 
ernment for  man,  and  for  man  alone.  They  wished  to  pre- 
serve the  individuality  and  liberty  of  all ;  to  prevent  the 
few  from  governing  the  many,  and  the  many  from  perse- 
cuting and  destroying  the  few."  So  while  the  Convention 
and  the  Constitution  please  you  highly  as  genuine  Chris- 
tianity, they  suit  me  very  well  as  practical  Infidelity.  I 
would  simply  ask  the  question,  if,  as  Judge  Story  insists, 


-Ci 


THB  HUMPHEET-BENNETT  DISCUSSION, 


167 


the  Constitution  is  a  Christian  Instrument,  why  is  it 
that  our  most  zealous  Christians  are  so  anxious  to  insert 
their  God,  their  Christ  and  their  Bible  into  it?  If  it  i^ 
first-lass  Christian  document  as  it  is,  why  not  let  it  remain 
so  ?    Why  seek  to  change  it? 

I  regret  that  you  deem  it  necessary  to  say:  "You  show 
several  individuals  in  a  false  light.    What  authority  have 
you  for  saying  James  Smithft)n  was  a  Freethinker  ?"    I 
said  nothing  of  the  kind,  and  you  should  not  so  charge  me 
until  I  have  done  it.    My  words  were,  "  You  need  have  no 
doubt  about  the  religious  status  of  James  Smithson  when 
you  are  aware  that  the  matter  of  introducing  and  cham- 
pioning the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  the  Smithsonian 
Institute  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Infidel  Owen,  who 
ably  engineered  it  through  Congress."    I  added,  in  sub- 
stance, that  had  there  been  good  grounds  for  claiming 
Smithson  as  a  Christian  the  claim  would  have  been  made 
in  all  the  Encyclopsedias  of  the  country.    I  think  the  infer- 
ence fair  and  correct    When  a  great  man  is  not  claimed  by 
such  Christians  as  yourself,  it  is  highly  probable  he  is  an 
unbeliever.    But  I  did  n#t  say  Smithson  was  a  Freethinker, 
and  you   should  not  have  charged  me  with  saying  it. 
"There  is  nothing  like  being  accurate,"  Mr.  Humphrey. 
Why  do  you  ask  for  my  proof  that  Smithson  was  "  a  lying 
hypocrite  "  when  I  intimated  nothing  of  the  kind,  thought 
nothing  of  the  kind?  Accuracy  1  Accuracy  f  Mr.  Humphrey. 
You  express  doubts  about  Mr.  Owen  having  much  to  do 
with  the  establishment  of  the  Smithsonian  Institute.    By 
referring  to  the  Congressional  Globe  of  the  time  your  doubts 
may  be  removed.    He  not  only  introduced  the  bill  and 
urged  it  through  Congress,  but  he  was  one  of  the  first 
regents  of  the  institution. 

If  I  *'  showed  several  people  in  a  false  light,"  you  ought 
to  have  named  them.    I  certainly  want  only  to  show  the 
truth  and  will  thank  you  to  point  out  my  errors. 
Peter  Cooper  «  we  of  my  kind,  so  far  as  being  unsecta 


'1^1 


^> 


TEE  HTTHPHBET-BEHNETT  DISCUSSION. 


169 


t- 


THB  HUMPHBBT-BBimSTT  DISCUSSION. 

riaa,  an  unbeliever  in  the  marvelous  efficacy  of  the  bloocll 
of  a  man  who  was  put  to  death  over  eighteen  hundred 
^ears  ago,  and  that  the  man  who  was  so  executed  was  the 
God  of  heaven  and  earth.  He  is  not  a  believer  in  miracles, 
myths,  and  fables,  and  does  not  take  much  stock  in  the  Bible 
as  being  a  revelation  from  heaven.  It  looks  very  iDCon- 
sistent  for  you  to  hug  to  your  bosom  and  claim  as  a  brother 
in  the  faith  a  man  who  believes  precisely  as  did  he  whom 
your  leader  and  patron  saint»  John  Calvin,  condemned  to  a 
cruel  death  by  fire,  on  account  of  his  unbelief.  Peter 
Cooper  belongs  to  a  class  of  unbelievers  whom  orthodox 
Christians  have  a  thousand  times  denounced  as  Infidels 
and  deserving  of  hell.  I  remember  distinctly  a  case  where 
a  Presbyterian  clergyman  said  the  Unitarian  Church  did 
more  harm  than  all  the  rum-holes,  theatres,  and  houses 
of  prostitution  in  the  city.  Verily,  my  friend,  you  are 
evolving  very  far  from  where  your  brethren  of  the  Church 
stood  but  a  very  few  years  ago. 

You  have  no  authority  for  saying  *'  Peter  Cooper  would 
scorn  the  idea  of  being  a  disciple  of  Tom  Paine.*'  I  did 
not  say  he  was  such  a  disciple;  *but  he  is  an  honest  man 
and  he  doubts  not  that  Paine  was  an  honest  man,  who  had 
the  independence  and  candor  to  say  what  he  thought, 
whether  it  made  him  popular  or  not.  Mr.  Cooper  neither 
scorns  Paine  nor  his  disciples.  I  presume  in  speak- 
ing of  Paine  he  would  be  gentlemanly  enough  to  call 
him  Mr,  Paine  or  Thomcu  Paine.  I  do  not  think  he 
would  follow  the  suit  of  pious  Christians  and  call  him  by 
the  nickname,  **  Tom  Paine."  In  many  points  Mr.  Cooper 
believes  as  Thomas  Paine  did.  If  Mr.  Cooper  gave  the  use 
of  his  hall  to  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  he  at  the  same  time 
took  occasion  to  give  expression  to  his  views,  which  were 
far  from  being  orthodox.  You  ask  if  Mr.  Cooper  ever  gave 
the  use  of  his  hall  for  an  Infidel  convention.  For  a  very  good 
reason  he  did  not.  No  large  Infidel  convention  has  been  held 
hera  to  whom  he  eould  offer  it   Aa  regards  his  offering  tho 


use  of  his  hall  to  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  Mr.  Cooper  said 
to  a  friend  that  his  object  in  doing  so  was  to  be  able  to  pre- 
sent some  of  his  own  heterodox  views  before  them,  and  he 
playfully  alluded  to  the  fact  that  he  was  invited  upon  the 
platform  and  seated  beside  the  President,  as  being  a  good 
joke  that  a  heretic  like  himself  should  be  thus  honored  in 
the  Evangelical  Alliance.  He  has  often  styled  himself  a 
"  heretic." 

I  said  nothing  about  the  founder  of  Cornell  University. 
You  say  he  was  a  Quaker.  Good  enough.    The  Quakers  are 
largely  good  Infidels  so  far  as  a  majority  of  their  doctrinal 
points  are  concerned.    Elias  Hicks  was  of  this  class,  and 
also  many  intelligent  Quakers  of  my  own  personal  acquain^ 
ance.    The  ceremony  of  prayer  is  very  likely  kept  up  in  tho 
college,  but  the  assertion  I  made  about  the  skepticism  and 
f reethinking  of  the  professors  was  from  a  gentleman  who 
had  gone  through  a  course  of  instruction  there,  and  knew 
precisely  what  he  was  talking  about.    I  have  it  also  from 
a  personal  friend  of  President  White  that  the  latter  is  en- 
tirely an  unbeliever  in  Christian  dogmas.    The  letters  he 
has  recently  written  from  Europe,  where  he  has  been  trav- 
eling give  clear  indications  as  to  where  he  stands.    In  a 
letter  from  bicily  he  said  in  substance,  when  looking  over 
the  countries  where  the  heavy  hand  of  the  Church  had  in 
past  centuries  crushed  out  human  liberty,  and  almost  human 
incentives:  "I  see  in  all  these  countries  where  the  ecclesi- 
astical powers  have  triumphed  that  the  right  of  opinion  and 
the  right  of  liberty  have  been  suppressed;'*  and  more  in  the 
same  line.    Prof.  W.  C.  Russell,  acting  President  of  Cor- 
nell University,  is  a  stock-holder  in  The  Index,  an  Infidel 
paper  of  Boston,  owning  two  shares  of  $100  each.    He  pays 
The  Index  an  installment  of  $20  per  year  besides  his  sub- 
scription, and  is  one  of  the  firmest  supporters  of  that  paper. 
President  White  has  also  taken  The  Index  from  its  com- 
mencement, and  is  strongly  in  sympathy  with  it.    Prof. 
Adler  was  not  turned  out  of  the  Institution.    He  left  there 


', 


ii: 


170 


THE  HUMFHEET- BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


li 


not  because  he  was  not  wanted,  but  because  he  was  wanted 

elsewhere  more. 

As  to  the  London  University,  I  simply  claim  that  it  k 
unsectarian,  and  that  eoclesiasticism  and  theological  dog- 
mas are  not  admitted  there,  and  hav«  not  been  for  fifty 
years.  I  think  this  is  trae.  That  is  as  good  Infidelity  as  I 
ask  for.  Alexander  Bain  filled  one  of  its  important  chairs, 
«nd  he  is  one  of  the  strongest  Materialists  in  England,  and 
Professor  Clifford,  a  pronounced  Atheist,  fills  another. 
Thus  the  facts  bear  me  out  in  all  I  claimed. 

You  seem  greatly  dissatisfied  with  Stephen  Qirard  be- 
<jau8e  he  stipulated  that  the  clergy  should  not  have 
admittance  into  his  college.  He  did  that,  not  in  a  spirit  of 
llliberality,  bat  because  he  well  knew  and  wished  to  avoid 
the  designing,  grasping,  Jesuitical  priesthood.  For  the 
express  reason  that  he  wanted  the  college  to  be  fr§% 
«nd  Vbwal  did  he  forbid  the  admission  of  priests.  But 
with  all  the  old  man's  precautions  and  all  the  safeguard! 
he  aimed  to  throw  around  the  college,  his  wishes  have 
l>een  nearly  subverted,  and  the  clergy  have  gained  more 
iftfluence  there  than  he  Intended  they  ever  should. 

Ah!  you  have  at  length  caught  me  in  an  error  I  I  said 
that  that  word  of  marvelous  power— /ati^i— upon  which 
the  Christian  world  depends  for  happiness  and  salvation 
from  hell  through  an  endless  eternity,  appeared  but  once 
in  the  Old  Testament  or  Bible  proper.  It  is  found  there 
twice.  I  acknowledge  the  mistake.  I  overlooked  it  in 
Habbakuk;  but  I' have  standing  on  the  other  side  of  the 
ledger  nine  hundred  and  ninety  harp-strings  which  you 
gracefully  acknowledge  as  an  error.  I  will  offset  this  last 
"  faith"  against  one  of  them,  and  that  leaves  me  nine  hun- 
dred and  eighty-nine  still  ahead. 

You  still  wish  to  make  a  difference  between  •*  faith"  and 
"credulity"  when  there  really  is  none.  Credulity,  like  cre- 
dence, credit,  etc.,  is  from  ewddiw.  Webster  defines  credence 
ea  that  which  gives  a  claim  to  credit,  belief,  confidence;  and 


TMB  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


171 


J 


'j', 


Illustrates  it  with  this  quotation  from  Trench :  "To  give  ere- 
dence  to  the  Scripture  miracles."  CTeduUy  is  -easiness  of 
belief;  a  disposition  to  believe  on  slight  evidence."  Faiih  is 
"belief;  the  assent  of  the  mind  to  what  is  declared  by 
another;  resting  solely  and  implicitly  on  his  authority  and 
veracity;  reliance  on  testimony,''  etc.  There  is  no  real  differ- 
ence. The  Christian  is  called  upon  to  have  faith  in  a  great 
deal  which  is  told  him,  and  of  which  he  has  no  proof.  He 
must  have  credulity  to  have  the  necessary  faith,  and  they 
are  both  JMnd  enough  for  all  practical  purposes.  The  more 
credulity  a  trusting  Christian  has  to  believe  what  the  Bible 
and  the  priests  say,  the  more  faith  he  has  and  the  better 
Christian  he  is  considered.  It  takes  cfredvUiy  to  believe 
impossibilities  and  monstrosities,  and  one  cannot  beUeve 
them  unless  he  has  credulity,  and  that  belief  is/a«A-they 
are  the  same,  and  both  as  UinA  as  an  owl  in  sunlight 

It  appears  to  me  you  have  not  told  the  vih^  truth  about 
the  Alexandrian  Library.  If  a  portion  of  it  was  burnt 
when  Julius  C«sar  be^eiged  the  city,  a  century  before 
Christianity  had  an  existence,  it  was  by  accident  or  as  an 
incident  of  war.  It  proves,  at  least,  that  the  learning  and 
science  which  the  library  contwned  was  not  in  any  way  de- 
pendent  upon  Christianity.  It  is  unfair  to  represent  that 
Julius  Cffisar  burned  it  with  the  same  motive  that  influenced 
Theodosius  and  Bishop  Theophilus  four  hundred  years 
later.  Csesar  was  a  lover  of  books  and  learning.  He 
was  the  author  of  several  works,  and  did  not  burn  the 
Ubrary  from  any  hatred  of  literature.  He  established 
libraries  in  several  instances,  and  purposely  destroyed  none 
as  did  the  Christian  Spaniards  when  they  conquered 
Mexico,  or  the  Christian  Crusaders  who  are  charged  with 
having  burnt  a  very  extensive  library  in  Tripoli. 

You  do  wrong  to  call  Caesar  and  Omar  lnji4eU,  in  the 
accepted  meaning  of  the  word.  Of  course  neither  were 
Christians,  but  both  were  believers  in  religion.  C«sar  had 
Ms  gods  and  his  creed,  and  Omar  was  as  much  of  a  zealot 


■tl. 


1 


m 


TBB  HXTMPHSST-BBNIISTT  DI8CU88IOK. 


r't 


t 


and  fts  devout  as  a  Christian,  but  accepted  Mohammed  as 
the  prophet  of  Allah.  When  he  ordered  the  destruction  of 
what  remained  of  the  library,  in  «48,  it  is  said  to  have  been 
done  upon  the  grounds  that  if  the  books  agreed  with  the 
Koran— the  word  of  God—they  were  useless,  and  need  not 
be  preserved,  and  if  they  did  not  agree  with  it,  they  were 
pernicious,  and  should  be  destroyed.  This  motive  was  so 
like  the  Christian  sentiment  it  is  hard  to  discern  much 
difference  between  them.  The  great  trouble  between  Chris- 
tians and  Mohammedans  was  not  because  they  had  not  faith, 
but  because  they  had  too  much  faith,  and  had  different 
systems  and  accepted  different  leaders.  Their  contests 
led  to  the  death  of  many  millions  of  people. 

You  evidently  dislike  to  own  up  that  Palestine  affords  no 

proofs  of  an  ancient  Hebrew  clvUization,  and  characterize 

the  friend  from  whom  I  obtained  f acU  upon  the  subject  as 

the  "  Great  Unknown."    You  are  as  wide  of  the  truth  here 

as  in  other  instances.    The  gentleman  is  modest,  but  is  not 

unknown.     He  is  not  a  **  myth."    Prof.  A.  L.  Rawson 

has   been    honored    by    the    colleges    of    Europe    and 

America  with  the  honorary  degrees  of  Master  of  Arts, 

Doctor   of  Divinity,  and   Doctor  of  Laws,    has    made 

four  journeys  to  Palestine,  has  edited  a  History  of  all 

Religions,  History   of  the   Roman   Catholic   Church   in 

America,  Statistics  of  Protestantism,  Antiquities  of  the 

Orient.   Introductions    to   the    Holy    Bible,   etc.,  etc.,; 

as  an  artist,  illustrated  Be€cher*s  Life  of  Jesus,  Howard 

Crosby's  Jesus,  his  Life  and  Work,  Dr.  Deems'  Jesus, 

Commentaries  by  several  authors.  Youthful  Explorers  in 

Bible  Lands,  Free   Masonry  in  the   Holy  Lands,  Bible 

-  Lands  Illustrated,  Pronouncing  and  Comprehensive  Bible 

Dictionaries;  and  is  now  engaged  on  a  large  work  on  the 

chronography,  geology,  climate,  antiquities,  and  natural 

history  of  animals  and  plants  of  Palestine,  with  maps  and 

engravings,  soon  to  appear  by  one  of  the  leading  publishing 

houses   in  this  city.    You  wiU  find  him  at  almost  any 


•T 


ri'i 


■?   '  rf, 


TSS  HUMFHBET-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


173 


hour  of  the  day  in  his  studio,  84  Bond  st.  You  will  find 
him  affable  and  disposed  to  give  you  any  information  he 
possesses  in  reference  to  Palestine.  He  will  take  pleas- 
ure in  showing  you  drawings  and  photographs  of  ruins, 
etc.,  taken  in  various  parts  of  Palestine,  Syria,  and  the 
adjacent  countries,  and  he  will  assure  you  that  every  piece 
of  ruins  that  is  found  in  Palestine  is  traceable  to  the 
Grecians,  the  Romans,  the  Egyptians,  the  Phoenicians,  the 
Arabs  or  the  Saracens.  He  will  repeat  to  you  the  assur- 
ances I  have  already  given  that  he  found  not  a  stone 
nor  a  vestige  of  anything  traceable  to  the  ancient  Hebrews, 
and  that  Dr.  Robinson  admitted  as  much,  with  the  exception 
perhaps  of  the  lower  part  of  the  foundation  of  the  Temple, 
which,  of  course,  cannot  be  accurately  determined.  Let 
me  add  here  that  Captain  Wilson  and  Captain  Warren  who 
were  sent  out  to  Palestine  by  the  London  Palestine  Explo- 
ration Society,  and  who  also  spent  four  years  in  that 
country,  in  Recovery  of  Jerusalem,  p.  813,  make  this  state- 
ment: "Looking  through  the  series  of  photographs  taken 
for  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  we  recognized  two 
distinct  styles  of  work;  the  one  rich  but  debased  Roman 
work,  the  other  Greek  or  Byzantine."  But  they  found 
none  of  ancient  Hebrew.  Let  me  also  make  a  quotation 
from  Dr.  Paley  in  his  Evidences  of  Christianity:  **Our 
Savior  assumes  the  divine  origin  of  the  Mosaic  Institution. 
I  conceive  it  very  diflOicult  to  assign  any  other  cause  for  the 
commencement  or  existence  of  the  institution,  especially 
from  the  singular  circumstance  of  the  Jews  adhering  to  the 
Unity  when  every  other  people  slid  into  polytheism,  for 
their  being  men  in  religion  and  children  in  every  thing  else; 
behind  other  nations  in  the  arts  of  peace  and  of  war;  but 
fiuperior  to  the  most  improved  in  their  sentiments  and 
doctrines  relating  to  the  Deity."  While  I  think  I  can  show 
that  to  the  Jewish  God  were  assigned  attributes  and  quali- 
ties more  abhorrent  than  to  any  other  gods.  Dr.  Paley's 
admission  that  the  Jewa  were  behind  other  nations  in  the 


.:vi 


i 


tn 


THB  nUMPHBST-BBNNETT  DIKCU8SI0K. 


TWB  HtrMPHRET-BENNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


175 


arts  is  an  important  one.  There  are  few  things  more 
certain  than  that  the  ancient  Jews  were  a  semi-barbarons 
people,  and  that  there  are  not  now  any  proofs  to  show  that 
they  ever,  as  a  naUon,  attained  to  any  high  degree  ol 
eivllization. 

I  think  yon  are  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  belief  that 
the  past  ages  were  replete  witlj  myths  is  being  lessened. 
There  was  never  a  time  when  the  general  opinion  was 
stronger  than  now  that  a  great  share  of  the  ancient  history 
of  the  world  is  mythical,  and  this  is  especially  true  of  Jew- 
ish history.    The  belief  that  there  ever  were  such  persons 
as    Adam,    Methusaleh,  Noah,  David.  Solomon,  etc.,  is 
wonderfully  weakened  by  the  investigations  that  are  being 
made.    There  is  no  earthly  proof  of  them  except  the  crazy, 
improbable  Jewish  stories  in  the  Bible,  and  they  could  easily 
have  been  fabricated  at  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
4>i  as  late,  even,  as  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.    It  is  a  veiy 
suspicious  circumstance  that  the  name  of  Moses  was  not 
used  by  an/  of  the  older  prophets.    If  he  really  was  the 
captain,  lawgiver,  and  savior  which  the  Bible  makes  him; 
if  he  and  God  were  in  each  other's  company  daily  for  forty 
years*,  if  Moses  advised  God,  restrained  him,  and  controlled 
him.  as  the  Bible  represents.  It  would  seem  as  though  he  at 
least  should  have  been  mentioned  by  all  succeeding  proph- 
ets.   The  entire  Jewish  history  rests  under  a  dark  cloud  of 
doubt    There  are  no  corroborating  proofs  in  existence. 
Of  course,  the  hills  and  rivers  of  Palestine  still  remain,  but 
the  entire  country  never  was  capable  of  sustaining  a  popu- 
laaon  able  to  raise  two  millions  of  fighting  men,  nor  able  so 
soon  after  emerging  from  the  pastoral,  semi-barbarous  con- 
dition it  was  in  at  the  time  David  was  made  king,  to  acquire 
the  enormous   amount  of  gold  and  wealth  said   to  have 
been  used  by  his  son  Solomon.    The  story  is  nearly  as 
extravi^ant  as  some  of  the  tales  of  The  Arabian  Nights, 
though  not  nearly  as  well  written.    There  is  about  as  much 

proof  of  OiQ  fiusteiMM  of  Sinbad  the  SaU^r.  Aladdin.  Gulli 


tier^  Robinson  Crusoe,  and  Baron  Munchausen,  as  of  the 
Bible  myths.  It  is  quite  probable  that,  a  few  centuries 
before  the  Christian  era,  feeling  that  a  national  history  was 
necessary,  some  cunning  and  capable  writers  got  up  what 
Is  called  the  Bible  history  j  and  as  but  a  limited  number 
of  copies  were  written,  and  a  limited  number  of  people  had 
access  to  it,  or  could  read  it  if  they  had,  and  they  the  priests 
only,  it  attracted  but  slight  attention  for  a  long  time. 
As  time  wore  away,  a  veneration  grew  up  for  it,  which  is 
so  easy  for  superstitious  people  to  bestow  upon  that  which 
has  great  age,  oris  supposed  to  have.  This  may  be  a  mat- 
ter of  mere  speculation,  but  one  thing  is  certain,  such  a 
thing  could  have  been  very  possible.  There  is  nothing  in 
those  old  stories  that  a  man  or  men  of  fair  taleni  could  not 
write,  and  it  is  more  probable  that  they  were  «o  written 
than  that  many  of  the  statements  made  were  tiae.  If  the 
Jews  were  such  a  powerful  nation  as  the  Bible  makes  them^ 
if  David  and  Solomon  were  such  mighty  monarchs,  and 
reigned  midst  such  regal  magnificence,  it  is  singular  that 
other  nations  and  cotemporaneous  historians  knew  nothing 
of  it.  As  I  said  in  my  last,  Herodotus  the  celebrated 
Greek  historian,  made  two  ^urneys  through  Syria  five  ceutu- 
ries  after  Solomon  was  said  to  have  reigned,  and  when  his 
magnificent  Temple  ought  to  have  been  standing,  but  he 
makes  not  the  slightest  mention  of  Solomon,  of  the  Temple, 
nor  even  of  the  Jewish  nation.  If  they  existed  at  all  then 
it  was  as  a  race  of  rude  nomadic  people,  semi-barbarians  not 
worthy  of  his  attention.  Their  numbers,  their  wealth,  and 
their  splendor  were  doubtless  matters  of  subsequent  inven- 
tion. ' 

You  will  have  it  that  Thomas  Paine  is  as  much  a  myth 
as  Moses.  I  have  seen  several  m«n  who  have  seen  and  con- 
versed with  Paine.  I  have  seen  the  grave  where  his  body 
'  was  buried.  I  have  seen  men  who  saw  the  wagon  convey- 
ing his  remains  from  the  grave  under  the  direction  of  Wm. 
Cobbett.    I  hav«  seen  men  who  saw  the  bones  of  Paine 


tV 


,  1  I 


i 


176  THB  HtlMPHBKT-BKinWTI  DttOOBHOK. 

exposed  In  CoVbeWn  bookstore  In  Fleet  street.  I;ondon.    1 
Ld  it  from  a  trustworthy  party  t''''  '^^  """^  J^ 
Uken  to  one  of  the  large  potteries  of  England.  P<>"°d  »° 
n^wder.  mixed  with  flne  clay  and  "--f « '»'»  """"i;";; 
Jd  trinkets  for  keepsakes.    1  have  read  Paine  s  wrU.ng»- 
They  are  characteristic  of  the  man,  clear,  simple.  forcAle, 
logiL  and  unambiguous,  such  only  as  Paine  was  capable  of 
writing.  But  what  does  the  world  know  "bout  Mose^TWh*^ 
did  it  ever  know  about  him  t    The  place  ol  his  bunal  wa» 
never  known,  and  it  U  .  matter  of  grave  doubt  'Aether  - 
a  Uving  man  he  wm  ever  known.    It  U  probable  he  was 
llkeMenes  of  Egypt.  «id  Mino.  of  <i^'1^^l%^^ 
riarism  of  the  Menu  of  India.    It  i.  claimed  that  he  wrote 
TL  five  books  of  the  Bible,  but  there  U  not  the  dight^ 
authority  for  the  claim.  A- ««rtion  that  hewas  thewn^ 
U  not  made  in  any  one  of  the  books  credited  to  him.    In 
^probability  he  had  no  more  to  do  with  Uie  writmg  ot 
STbook.  Ln  you  or  L    They  relate  i-WenU  «d  J- 
l«ie  to  evenu  which  occurred  hundred,  of  ye«s  a^ter  h. 
w«  «id  to  have  Uved.    A.  smart  m  he  '"  ^^'-^f 
to  he     able  a.  he  wm  to  «lvl.e  and  control  Jehovah 
he  WM  3ly  capable  of  narrating  minutely  what  took 
pL^TthousaniyL.  before  he  w«i  bom  or  two  hundred 
JeTrs  after  he  wm  buried.  The  dim.  two  a*""*';  j^ 
L^  r  he  WM  dead,  that  he  wm  the  author  ot  thoM  writing. 
U  much  easier  made  than  proved.  _fc.ti.«rfiiid 

One  thing  may  be  Mt  down  M  the  truth:  ^H-t  ^  c^~ 
the  Mo«ac  writing.  «e  not  the  oldest  record,  in  Oie  worij 

„„r  could  th^  have  been  written  «" '*'- i^f'^^^dt 
The  world  hM  had  three  .yrtem.  of  wriUng.  The  old^ 
Lwn  is  the"anowheads.»or  cuneiform  ««="P'^^j; 
the  Chaldean.  «id  Babylonians.  These  were  not  written 
Sth  an  alphabet  of  letter,  representing  «>unds.  but  cha^ 
ui  representing  .yllable.  and  words.  Q^o^*  S'^'*"* 
Sn.  I^wlinson  discovered  great  number,  of  t^e^^J^ 
fem  inKripaon.  in  Nineveh.  «d  found  Q^  practtelly 


THB  HUMPHBBT-BBNNBTT  DISCUaSIOH. 


177 


Ihe  same  legends  of  the  Creation  and  the  Flood  as  those 
which  were  afterwards  adopted  as  their  revealed  cosmgony. 
After  this  system,  came  into  vogue  the  Egyptian  hiero- 
glyphics, or  picture-writing.  These  were  used  many  cen- 
turies, and  numerous  inscriptions  on  the  temples  and 
pyramids  of  Egypt  in  hieroglyphics  remain  to  this  day.  It 
is  not  known  how  long  the  systems  of  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions and  hieroglyphics  were  used,  but  probably  thousands 
of  years.  Not  till  long  after  these  was  an  alphabet  formed. 
Letters  representing  separate  sounds  are  comparatively  a 
modem  invention,  and  as  Hebrew  was  only  written  with 
an  alphabet,  whatever  was  written  in  that  language  was 
long  subsequent  to  the  use  of  the  other  two  systems.  From 
this  it  is  clear  that  the  Hebrew  is  far  from  being  the  oldest 
language  in  the  world,  and  alphabetic  writing  far  from  the 
most  ancient. 

You  make  out  a  very  weak  apology  for  David  and 
Solomon  for  their  licentiousness.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
proof  that  David  wrote  the  Psalms  you  pointed  out,  nor  the 
slightest  proof  that  in  those  Psalms  his  adultery  with  Bath- 
sheba,  or  his  having  Uriah  put  to  death,  were  meant  at  alL 
His  confessions  of  sins  committed  are  general  and  indefinite. 
The  condemnation  in  Nehemiah  in  regard  to  Solomon  are 
far  from  emphatic,  for  notwithstanding  his  gross  sensuality 
with  his  700  wives  and  300  concubines  in  one  of  the  verses 
you  named  it  says:  "There  was  no  king  like  him  beloved  of 
God. "  Thus,  notwithstanding  David's  lechery  and  murder, 
he  was  a  special  favorite  with  God,  and  though  Solomon  was 
the  greatest  libertine  that  ever  lived,  God  loved  him  above 
all  other  kings.  My  assertion,  then,  stands  good,  that  Solo- 
mon was  condemned  for  his  idolatry  and  not  for  his  licen- 
tiousness. 

For  a  friend  of  science  you  speak  disrespectfully  of  it,  I 
must  say.  Such  epithets  as  "poor  stuff,"  "bran,"  "shorts," 
"chaff,"  "cockle,"  "thistle,"  "smut  and  all,"  sound  singu- 
lar coming  from  a  professed  friend.  An  enemy  would  hardly 


'i 


I 


I* 


f!9 


«m  MinfPHBVP-inDimETT  racuBsiaflr. 


THE  HUMFHBST-BENNETT  DISGUSStOH, 


179 


undeHake  lo  heap  mow  obloquy  upon  it    In  fact,  I  would 
prefer  an  out-and-out  enemy  to  such  an  ambiguous  friend. 
How  is  it  with  your  teienHfie  hook,  the  Bible?  Does  it  have 
any  "bran/'  ''shortSk"  "chaff,"  "cockle,"  "thistle," and  par- 
ticularly,  9mut  f    I  fancy  I  find  much  of  all  of  these  diffused 
through  its  9cUm$,  For  the  latter  quality,  "smut"  (if  you  will 
not  teU  Comstock),  I  wiU  refer  you  to  the  beautiful  Song  of 
the  favorite  king,  Solomon,  to  the  story  of  Lot  and  hia 
daughters,  of  Dinah  and  Schechcm,  of  Reuben  and  Bilhah, 
of  Judah  and  Tamar,  of  Onan  by  himself,  of  Joseph  and  Mrs. 
Potiphar,  of  Zimri  and  Cozbi,  of  the  Levite  and  his  concu- 
bine, of  Ruth  and  Boaz,  of  David  and  Bathsheba,  of  Amnon 
and  Tamar,  of  Absalom  and  his  father's  concubine,  and 
many  other  choice  bits  too  numerous  to  mention.    Are 
there  any  books  published,  save  a  few  that   are  justly 
tabooed  by  law,  that  contain  so  much  "smut"?    To  read 
these  lascivious  recitals  is  enough  to  make  one  wonder  why 
the  sainted  Comstock  has  not  long  since  arrested  the  Amer- 
ican  Bible   Society  for   sending  out  obscene   literature. 
Such  indecent  matter  could  not  circulate  in  any  other  book. 
I  prefer  the  friendship  that  Professor  Huxley  evinces  fo» 
science  to  yours.    Hear  him:  "Modern  civilization  rests 
xepon  physical  science;  take  away  her  gifts  to  our  country 
and  our  position  among  the  leading  nations  of  the  world 
is  gone  to-morrow;  for  it  is  physical  science  that  makea 
intelligence  and  moral  energy  stronger  than  brute  force. 
The  whole  of  moral  thought  is  steeped  in  science.    It  has 
made  its  way  into  the  works  of  our  best  poets,  and  even 
the  mere  man  of  letters,  who  affects  to  ignore  and  despise 
science,  is  unconsciously  impregnated  with  her  spirit,  and 
Indebted  for  his  best  products  to  her  methods.     She  is 
teaching  the  world  that  the  ultimate  court  of  appeal  is 
observation  and  experience,  and  not   authority.     Slie  is 
creating  a  firm  and  living  faith  in  the  existence  of  immut- 
able moral  and  physical  laws,  perfect  obedience  towhicb 
is  the  highest  possible  aim  of  an  intelligent  being." 


Tou  magnanimously  admit  that  the  putting  of  Hypatia 
to  death  was  "  a  disgraceful  affair."  I  should  think  it  was  I 
•^just  about  as  disgraceful  as  millions  of  other  acts  of  the 
same  character  committed  by  the  Christian  Church.  Do 
you  imagine,  however,  that  it  makes  the  crime  less  offen- 
sive to  every  instinct  of  ennobled  human  nature  to  throw 
an  insinuation  over  the  memory  of  the  murdered  woman 
that  possibly  she  had  been  intimate  with  Orestes  ?  If  it 
was  true — which  by  no  means  is  made  clear  —  would 
that  justify  the  knocking  down  of  a  defenseless  woman 
upon  the  streets,  dragging  her  into  a  church,  stripping  her 
naked,  beating  her  with  clubs  till  dead  and  then  finishing 
the  very  Christian  proceeding  by  scraping  the  flesh  from 
her  bones  ?  Was  that  slight  impropriety  "more  an  error 
of  the  head  than  the  heart"? 

In  your  brief  allusion  to  "  the  reign  of  terror  "  in  France, 
you  commit  the  same  mistake  which  your  Christian  breth- 
ren have  done  in  hundreds  of  instances,  that  is  to  charge 
upon  Freethinkers  the  blame  for  the  excesses  that  were 
committed  at  that  time.  I  will  not  say  that  you  are  dis- 
honest in  insinuating  this,  but  you  ought  to  be  better  in- 
formed. The  excesses  so  committed  were  wholly  of  a 
political  character,  and  neither  religious  or  anti-religious. 
The  extravagant  conduct  of  those  who  become  Invested 
with  power  was  a  natural  reaction  or  rebound  of  a  mercu- 
rial people  from  the  rule  of  a  corrupt  monarchy,  a  corrupt 
aristocracy,  and  a  corrupt  priesthood  which  for  a  long  time 
had  ruled  the  country.  It  is  a  law  in  human  nature  that 
where  a  nation  or  a  community  emerges  from  a  state  of  op- 
pression before  an  equilibrium  can  be  gained,  a  rebound 
to  the  opposite  extreme  is  inevitable. 

The  causes  which  led  to  the  excesses  under  consideration 
were  some  of  them  remote.  Under  the  reign  of  Louis 
XIV.  corruption,  extravagance  and  licentiousness  reached 
a  great  extreme,  no  less  on  the  part  of  the  monarch  and 
the  nobility  than  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.    The  king 


i 


180 


TBB  BVJtPHRBT-BBllHSTT  DISCUSfllON. 


1 


r    ; 


wasted   tiie   reycnues  of    the  government  in  the  grow- 
est  eztraTagance  in  building  useless  palaces,  reclaiming 
waste  places,  etc.,  etc.    The  treasury  was  also  sadly  de- 
pleted by  the  licentious  clergy  and  aristocracy.    Rioting, 
revelry,  court  carnivals,  mistresses,  royal  favorites,  and 
debauchery  were  the  order  of  the  day  until  the  wealth  of 
the  nation  was  exhausted.    This  state  of  things  was  fol* 
lowed  in  1786f  by  a  devastating  hail-storm,  which  cut  off  the 
crops  over  a  large  portion  of  the  kingdom  and  brought  the 
people  to  starvation.    The  cry  was  "Bread  or  blood. *• 
The  enemies  of  Marie  Antoinette  excited  the  prejudices  of 
the  hungry  mobs  against  **  the  Austrian.**    The  issue  came 
between  the  starving  masses  on  the  one  hand  and  the  op- 
pressive aristocracy  on  the  other — between  monarchy  and 
mobocracy.    The  heavy  exactions  of  a  lordly  priesthood 
had  much  to  do  in  leading  to  the  bloody  result.    The 
noted  Infidels  of  Paris  so  far  as  they  meddled  with  the  ter- 
rible  transactions  of  the  times,  sought  to  stay  the  threaten- 
ing storm.    Count  Mirabeau,  an  Atheist,  and  the  most  pow- 
erful man  in  France,  both  with  the  people  and  the  nobility, 
sought  to  reconcile  the  frantic  factions,  and  probably  would 
have  succeeded  to  a  great  extent  had  he  lived  ;  but  at  this 
critical  moment  hesnddenly  died,  while  negotiating  between 
the  mob  and  the  monarch  ;  and  the  saturnalia  of  blood  suc- 
ceeded.   The  throne  of  the  Bourbons  was  dashed  to  pieces. 
So  the  "reign  of  terror,"  I  repeat,  was  simply  a  reaction 
against  the  twin-oppressors,  kingcraft  and  priestcraft,  by  a 
long  suffering,  starving  people.    Paine,  the  Infidel  and  the 
Republican,  hazarded  his  own  life  in  attempting  to  save 
the  dethroned  king  and  to  avert  the  frenzied  storm  he 
saw  in  the  near  future.    He  was  thrown  into  prison  and 
his  life  was  saved  by  the  merest  fortuitous  circumstance. 
The  Infidels  were  really  the  conservatives  all  through  that 
bloody  period  when  madness  was  the  ruling  power,  and 
many  of  them  lost  their  lives  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  liberty  and  peace.    Tes,  the  people  did  set  up  the 


•    4 


TSB  HUIIPHRBT-BBNKETT  DISCUSSION. 


181 


'i! 


Goddess  of  Reason,  and  it  was  high  time  that  they  did, 
when  they  saw  that  the  altar  and  throne  leaned  together, 
and  so  foully  sustained  each  other.  To  show  what 
was  the  status  of  Robespierre,  who  became  for  a  time 
the  ruling  spirit  in  that  mad  hour,  it  should  be  stated 
that  he  caused  God  to  be  recognized  in  the  new  con- 
stitution that  was  framed.  His  memorable  remark  before 
the  convention  was:  "If  it  is  true  that  there  is  no  God,  it 
behooves  us  to  invent  one.'*  His  suggestion  was  carried 
out.  This  is  the  truth  about  "the  reign  of  terror,"  and 
shows  how  untrue  is  the  charge  so  often  made  by  Christians 
that  it  was  the  work  of  Infidels  or  Atheists.  It  was  strictly 
of  a  political  character,  and  with  the  impulsive  French 
people  was  a  natural  reaction  from  the  priestly  oppressions 
they  had  so  long  endured. 

But  let  us  get  right  down  to  the  question  of  science  and 
the  patronage  which  it  derives  from  the  Bible  and  Chris- 
tianity. We  have  already  seen  how  Bible  science  and  real 
science  compare.  The  explorations  which  scientists  have 
made,  such  as  the  antiquities  of  the  stone  age,  the  finding 
under  immense  deposits  of  alluvial  soil  and  drift  numerous 
implements  of  roughly  carved  stone  and  the  bones  of 
man  side  by  side  with  the  bones  of  animals  which  long 
since  became  extinct;  human  bones  found  under  the  stalag- 
mite formations  which  by  careful  computations  were 
found  to  be  the  accretions  of  scores  of  thousands  of  years; 
fossils  pertaining  to  the  human  race  found  in  the  tertiary 
rocks,  convince  the  wisest  and  most  observing  that  the 
human  race  has  existed  on  the  earth  fully  100,000  years. 
The  Bible  makes  it  less  than  6,000.  Scientists  know  most 
positively  that  the  Bible  cosmogony  is  wholly  untrue.  But. 
without  stopping  to  enumerate  the  many  instances  where 
the  Bible  is  m  direct  opposition  to  science,  I  will  make  the 
assertion  as  true,  that  in  scarcely  the  slightest  particular  is 
there  an  agreement  between  the  Bible  and  science;  and  it 
aeems  the  wildest  vagary  a  man  can  be  guilty  of  to 


I 


>■ 

J^ 


183 


THM  HUMPHBlT-BKNNftTT  DISCITSSION. 


THE  HUMPHBEY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


183 


seriously  undertake  to  show  thai  the  teachings  of  science 
harmonize  with  the  unnatural  and  impossible  Bible  stories. 
I  notice,  too,  that  you  pass  over  those  monstrosities  Just  ai 
easily  as  possible.  I  cannot  wonder  that  you  do  not  wish 
to  give  Bible  cosmogony  and  archeology  an  examination. 
They  will  not  bear  it  in  the  light  of  science.  Christian /atZA 
and  (^ndiMp  are  all  that  can  make  them  seem  truthful. 

Christianity  is  very  little  more  in  unison  with  science 
than  is  the  Bible.  How  can  it  be,  when  it  is  founded  upon 
those  old  unscientific  Bible  stories?  The  genius  of  Christian- 
ity—if it  may  be  said  to  have  a  genius— is  diametrically 
opposed  to  the  spirit  of  science.  The  latter  depends  upon 
investigation,  study,  testing,  digging,  smelting,  assaying, 
meltuig,  burning,  distilling,  analyzing,  accepting  and  con- 
demning,  as  the  case  requires,  while  Christianity  says  it  has 
a  revelation  from  an  unknown  God  in  the  sky,  which  we 
must  accept  without  proof,  and  without  question.  The 
voice  of  science  says  "8iudy,  examine,  and  learn,'*  The  voice 
of  Christianity  is  "  Bdiew  or  be  damnedJf  Science  tells  us 
we  must  not  believe  without  proof;  that  we  must  look  into 
the  causes  of  existences  as  we  find  them,  and  learn  more 
and  more  as  we  extend  our  observations  and  investigations. 
Christianity  tells  us  that  its  revelation  contains  all  that  man 
needs  to  know,  that  coming  from  God  it  is  perfect  and  can- 
not improve.  It  provides  for  no  change  or  progress,  so  far 
as  its  revelation  Is  concerned.  Science  says:  *' Press  for- 
ward, men;  be  not  satisfied  with  old  discoveries  and  old 
opinions;  increase  your  investigations;  dig  deeper;  climb 
higher;  know  more  ;  believe  less  ;  learn  all  that  is  possible 
for  you  to  know.*'  Christianity  says:  "I  have  given  you 
the  ultimate  of  truth,  the  sum  of  all  knowledge;  it  cannot 
be  improved  upon;  it  cannot  be  revoked;  it  cannot  be  ex- 
celled; you  must  look  no  farther,  you  must  search  no 
higher."  Science  commands  in  sonorous  tones:  "Doubt 
everything  until  you  have  proof  upon  which  to  found  an 
opinion;  believe  nothing  except  upon  evidence;  insist  upon 


the  facts  in  every  instance;  take  nothing  on  tick."    In 
thundering  and  authoritative  voice  Christianity  vocifer- 
ates: "Accept  what  I  give  you;  believe  without  a  question^ 
h&ve  faith,  faith,  FAITH  1  that  is  all  you  need.*'    Science 
says:  "Distrust  even  what  I  say,  until  you  know  it  is  cor- 
rect; always  t)e  convinced  before  you  accept;  learn  ever, 
more  and  more,  and  thus  be  happy."    Christianity  replies-: 
"Doubt  nothing  I  declare  unto  you;  accept,  and  live  in 
:glory  in  the  city  with  golden  streets,  with  crowns  of  dia- 
monds upon  your  heads;  but  if  you  presume  to  doubt  you 
shall  be  thrust  down  into  the  regions  of  darkness  and  sub- 
jected to  fires  of  inconceivable  intensity  and  forintermin- 
able  ages."    Science  has  its  teaschers,  hut  they  make  no 
onerous  demands  upon  its  votaries;  it  imposes  no  burdens 
upon  its  followers,  and  kindly  invites  all  to  follow  its 
peaceful  lead.    Christianity  has  its  priests,  and  they  place 
heavy  loads  upon  the  necks  of  their  di^es;  it  unposes  such 
burdens  upon  the  people  that  they  become  wearied  with 
life,  and  are  dragged  down  almost  to  penury  and  exhaus- 
tion.   Science  sits  lightly  and  wears  a  smiling  and  cheerful 
face  for  alL    Christianity  is  sombre  and  forbidding,  and 
while  it  points  to  the  beautiful  city  of  gold  for  the  few  that 
have/attA,  it  ever  ei^oses  the  horrid,  yawning  gulf  of  hell 
to  the  many  who  do  not  bdieve.    The  rule  of  science  in  the 
world  has  been  peaceful,  elevating,  and  happifying.     It 
has  not  drawn  the  sword;  it  has  not  deluged  the  earth  with 
blood.    It  has  made  the  world  better,  wiser,  and  happier. 
Christianity  has  ruled  with  an  iron  hand.    It  has  savagelf 
nsed  the  sword,  the  scaffold,  the  stake,  the  rack,  and  the 
dungeon.    It  has  caused  millions  to  groan  in  terror,  sorrow 
and  anguish.    It  has  blighted  the  happiness  of  tnai&ind. 
Science  has  not  purposely  caused  the  death  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual in  the  worid.    Christianity  has  been  most  cruel  and 
relentless;  it  has  pursued  its  victims  with  hate;  it  has  tor- 
tured them  without  mercy;  it  has  laughed  at  the  wretched- 
ness It  has  caused.    It  has  drenched  the  earth  with  the 


Mi 


THE  nXTMFHRET-BENNETT  DISCUSSIOK. 


THE  HTTMPmiET-BENinETT  DISCUSSION. 


185 


i 


i 


blood  of  millions  of  the  hapless  yietims  it  has  slain. 
Science  has  been  the  leading  element  in  the  progress  that 
man  has  made.  It  has  given  him  knowledge,  usefulness 
and  power.  It  has  been  the  great  factor  in  the  civilization 
of  the  world.  It  has  been  the  real  Savior  of  man.  Take 
from  the  earth  what  science  has  done,  and  in  the  language 
of  IngersoU,  "we  would  go  back  to  chaos  and  old  night. 
-Philosophy  would  be  branded  as  infamous,  Science  would 
again  press  its  pale  and  thoughtful  face  against  the  prison 
bars,  and  round  the  limbs  of  Liberty  would  climb  the 
bigot's  flame.'*  Take  from  the  world  what  Christianity  has 
done,  and  I  insist  the  world  would  be  the  better  for  it. 
Fully  seventy-five  millions  of  hapless  mortals  would  be  re- 
turned to  life  :  desolate  lands  would  be  restored  to  plenty 
ftnd  happiness;  the  heavy  rule  of  popes,  prelates  and  priests 
would  be  set  aside  and  humanity  vrould  become  its  own 
mler.  Centuries  of  ignorance  would  be  wiped  out,  and  the 
reign  of  darkening  creeds  would  seek  the  shades  of  ob 
livion. 

Friend  Humphrey,  in  your  argument  you  exhibit  much 
ingenuity  and  flippancy,  but  you  cannot  successfully  deny 
the  great  facts  pertaining  to  the  subject  under  discussion. 
Science  is  classified  knowledge.  Christianity  is  a  bundle  of 
theological  dogmas  derived  from  Judaism  and  Paganism. 
The  world  had  a  respectable  share  of  learning,  science  and 
philosophy  before  the  birth  of  Christianity.  Christianity 
originated  with  the  unlearned.  In  its  infancy  it  was  cm- 
braced  by  the  uneducated.  At  that  lime  it  did  not  foster 
and  encourage  the  learniog  which  had  previously  existed 
In  the  world.  It  destroyed  books  and  discouraged  litera- 
ture. It  insisted  that  the  wisdom  of  this  world  was  a  dam- 
age to  mankind,  and  that  the  knowledge  how  to  escape  the 
regions  of  sulphurous  flames  was  all  that  man  needed  to 
know.  When  Christianity  became  a  political  power  and 
gained  supreme  control  over  several  countries,  it  did  not 
■eek  to  elevate  learning  and  science,  but  within  ita  do- 


main the  people  gradually  sank  into  ignorance  and  deg- 
radation.   At  the  very  time  when  in  Moslem  countries  edu- 
cation was  fostered,  science  was  encouraged  and  schools  of 
philosophy  flourished,  in  Christendom  these  were  all  neg- 
lected, and  numerous  councils  were  convened  to  decide 
whether  a  son  could  be  as  old  as  his  father ;  whether  a 
ghost  could  beget  a  child;  whether  the  God-nature  or  man- 
nature  predominated  in  Jesus;  whether  they  became  one,  or 
remained  separate ;  whether  God  had  a  mother ;  whether 
she  had  an  immaculate  conception  ;  whether  women  have 
souls;  whether  bread  and  wine  were  absolutely  transubstan- 
tiated into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  whether  this 
miraculous  diet  should  be  partaken  of  by  the  priests  when 
unmixed,  and  whether  the  wafer  combined  of  the  two 
should  only  be  dispensed  to  the  laity,  and  whether  certain 
manuscripts  written  by  unknown  authors,  should  or  should 
not  be  regarded  as  sent  from  heaven.    Over  these  and 
other   similar   questions   bishops    and   priests   quarreled 
and  fought ;  and  science  and  mental  liberty  gradually  less- 
ened as  theological   dogmas  became  the  ruling  principle 
in  Europe.  The  more  the  dogmas  of  Christianity  triumphed 
the  faster  did  science  and  human  freedom  go  to  the  wall. 
After  a  few  centuries  of  Christian  supremacy  the  whole 
mass  of  the  people  were  so  ignorant  that  not  one  in  a 
thousand  could  read  or  write,  and  even  a  large  portion  of 
the  priests  were  unable  to  write  their  own  namea 

During  this  benign  and  heavenly  reign  of  theological 
ignorance  the  Christian  Instiintion par  excellence,  the  "Holy" 
Inquisition,  was  established,  and  for  nearly  five  hundred 
years  this  engine  of  cruelty  was  a  terrible  scourge  to 
Southern  Europe.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  hapless 
men  and  women,  of  all  ages  and  of  all  conditions  in  society, 
were  dragged  before  it,  at  all  hours  of  the  day  and  night, 
for  the  simple  crime  of  daring  to  think  for  themselves  and 
for  not  bending  the  knee  with  acceptable  suppliance  to  tho 
rule  of  ecclesiastical  power.    Here  the  poor  wretches  were 


ti 
''1 


186 


THE  HUMPHRET-BENXETT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  HUMPHHEY-BHITNETT  DISCUSSION. 


187 


I 


■ 


I 


arraigned  and  put  upon  the  torture  rack  If  itliout  knowing 
who  were  their  accusers  or  what  were  the  offenses  with 
which  they  were  charged.  Ecclesiastical  demons  presided 
over  these  diabolical  institutions  and  submitted  the 
wretched  victims  to  the  crudest  tortures  their  ingenuity 
was  capable  of  inventing  until  the  victim  conf eased  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  "  Holy  Inquisitor."  The  wretches  were 
put  upon  the  rack  or  the  "wheel";  the  crank  turned  a 
little  more,  and  a  little  more,  until  the  joints  were  torn 
asunder  and  the  bones  of  the  body  broken  one  after  an- 
other, and  at  intenrals  the  hapless  victim  was  agaiu  called 
upon  to  confess.  A  millionth  part  of  the  suffering  thus 
damnably  inflicted  can  never  be  known  to  the  world. 
According  to  Victor  Hugo  five  millions  of  human  beings 
were  thus  murdered  by  the  Christian  Church  in  cold  blood. 
Of  the  stake  I  need  not  speak.  The  horrors  of  the  auto  da 
f6  are  too  well  known  to  need  description  here. 

Let  me  introduce  an  appropriate  quotation  from  Mark 
Twain's  Innocents  Abroad:  "We  look  out  upon  many 
objects  of  interest  from  the  dome  of  St.  Peters;  and  last  of 
all,  almost  at  our  feet,  our  eyes  rest  upon  the  building  which 
was  once  the  Inquisition.  How  times  changed  between 
the  older  ages  and  the  new  !  flome  seventeen  or  eighteen 
centuries  ago  the  ignorant  men  of  Rome  were  wont  to  put 
"Christians  in  the  arena  of  the  Coliseum  yonder,  and  turn 
the  wild  beasts  in  upon  them  for  a  show.  It  was  for  a 
lesson  as  well.  It  was  to  teach  the  people  to  abhor  and  f  eai 
the  new  doctrine  the  followers  of  Christ  were  teaching. 
The  beasts  tore  the  victims  limb  from  limb,  and  made  poor 
mangled  corpses  of  them  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  But 
when  the  Christians  came  into  power,  when  the  Holy 
Mother  Church  became  mistress  of  the  barbarians,  she 
taught  them  the  error  of  their  ways  by  no  such  means. 
Nil ;  she  put  them  in  this  pleasant  Inquisition  and  pointed 
to  the  Blessed  Redeemer,  who  was  so  gentle  and  merciful 
to  all  men,  and  urged  tho  barbarians  to  love  him;  and  the 


did  all  she  could  to  perstAde  them  to  love  and  honor  him- 
first  by  twisting  their  thumbs  out  of  Joint  with  a  screw ;  then 
by  nipping  their  flesh  with  pincers— red-hot  ones,  because 
they  are  the  most  comfortable  in  cold  weather;  then  by 
skinning  them  alive  a  little;  and  finally  by  roasting  them  in 
public.  She  always  convinced  those  barbarians.  The  true 
religion  properly  administered,  as  the  good  Mother  Church 
used  to  administer  it,  is  very,  very  soothing.  It  is  wonder- 
fully persuasive,  also.  There  is  a  great  difference  between 
throwing  parties  to  wild  beasts  and  stirring  up  their  finer 
feelings  in  an  Inquisition.  One  is  the  system  of  degraded 
barbarians;  the  other  of  enlightened,  civilised  people.  It 
is  a  great  pity  the  Inquisition  is  no  more." 

These  terrors  and  inhumanities  are  the  special  science  of 
Christianity.  Here  it  showed  its  invention  and  its  art. 
During  the  long  night  of  religious  darkness  8  man  of  learn- 
ing was  a  rare  exception.  Duns  Scotus,  in  the  13th  century, 
was  one,  but  where,  for  five  hundred  years  before  or  two 
hundred  years  after,  will  you  point  out  another  like  him  t 
True,  schools  were  kept  up  to  a  certain  extent  all  through 
the  dark  ages,  but  what  kind  of  schools  were  they  ?  Not 
schools  of  science,  but  Christian  schools,  where  dogmas, 
ecclesiasticism,  and  theological  mysteries  only  were  taught. 
The  common  branches  of  education  were  denounced  by  tho 
magnates  of  the  Church  as  being  "  profane  "  and  ungodly. 
Gregory  the  Great  sharply  blamed  St.  Dizier  for  teaching 
grammar,  and  said:  "It  is  not  fit  that  a  mouth  sacred  to 
the  praises  of  God  should  be  opened  to  the  praises  of 
Jupiter."  The  highest  authorities,  including  Mosheim, 
Hallam,  Guizot,  Lecky,  Draper,  and  others  can  be  abun- 
dantly quoted  to  show  the  truth  of  the  statements  I  have 
made,  but  my  letter  is  already  too  long,  and  I  must  forego 
the  pleasure  at  this  time  of  bringing  these  writers  to  my 
support. 

Ti  am  aware  it  is  unpleasant  to  you  to  acknowledge  and 
approve   all  the    acts  and  persecutions  of  the  Catholic 


188 


THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  HUlfPHBBT-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


189 


I 
i 


I 
I 


i 


I! 


Church,  hut  I  cannot  see  how  you  can  get  hy  it.  It  looks 
bad  for  a  man  to  deny  his  own  mother  and  accuse  her  of 
base  conduct.  When  a  person  "goes  back"  on  his  mater- 
nal parent  he  is  regarded  as  being  in  a  depraved  condition. 
That  the  Bomish  Church  is  the  parent  of  the  Protestant 
Church  is  too  patent  to  be  questioned  for  a  moment.  As 
much  as  you  are  disposed  to  condemn  her  for  her  murders 
and  persecutions,  she  is  still  your  mother.  Every  dogma, 
every  point  of  faith  is  retained  by  you ;  you  have  added 
nothing  to  the  old  system. 

Tou  would  have  it  appear  that  the  Greek  Church  has  not 
been  inimical  to  science.  If  she  has  not  taken  as  much 
pains  to  fight  it  as  the  Bomish  division  has  done,  her 
friendship  for  science  has  not  been  of  such  an  ardent  char- 
acter as  to  induce  her  to  ma^ke  any  special  advance  in  its 
pursuit.  I  believe  the  Greek  Church  to  this  day  has  not 
distinguished  herself  in  scientific  education. 

I  freely  admit  that  many  Christians  in  the  last  two  cen- 
turies have  been  friendly  to  learning  and  science,  and  that 
many  have  done  much  to  increase  the  facilities  of  popular 
education ;  but  this  did  not  come  from  their  ardent  Chris- 
tianity or  their  love  for  ecclesiasticism.  It  arose  from  their 
Liberalism  and  the  spirit  of  progress  and  the  genuine  love 
of  linmanity  inherent  in  their  natures.  Despite  the  selfish- 
ness and  intolerance  of  the  dogmas  of  Christianity,  which 
causes  its  votaries  to  believe  they  are  going  to  heaven  with 
a  select  few  to  sing  the  joyful  song  of  Moses  and  the 
Lamb  through  a  blessed  eternity  while  countless  millions, 
by  nature  as  good  as  themselves  will  be  doomed  to  roast  for 
countless  ajses,  numerous  Christians  who  from  lack  of 
knowing  belter,  have  accepted  the  creed  in  which  they 
were  bom  and  educated,  have  evinced  the  grand  character- 
istics of  love  of  their  kind  which  have  actuated  good  men 
In  all  ages  of  the  world  and  in  all  systems  of  religion.  It 
la  no  more  Christianity  than  other  forms  of  creed  that 
cause  men  to  feel  these  implulsei  or  to  act  upon  them,  but 


It  is  the  grand  spirit  of  Liberalism  which  has  shown  itself 
in  spite  of  religions  and  creeds— Christianity  as  well  as 
others. 

I  think  no  charge  can  be  brought  against  you  for  not 
claiming  enough  for  your  pet  system.  Like  your  brethren, 
you  claim  for  it  not  only  all  the  advancement  science  has 
made,  but  civilization,  free  government,  etc.,  as  well.  Our 
government  is  often  called  a  Christian  government,  and  our 
popular  institutions  are  called  Christian  institutions.  These 
claims  are  untenable.  Civilization  is  not  dependent  upon 
any  creed  nor  upon  any  form  of  religion.  Buckle  and 
Draper  have  consistently  shown  that  climate,  meteor- 
ology, soil,  and  formation  of  country  have  had  much  to 
do  with  modifying  civilization.  Bace  and  customs  are  also 
important  factors  in  the  process.  The  more  the  different 
races  of  men  are  brought  into  contact,  the  more  the  mind  is 
stimulated  and  rendered  active  by  other  minds,  the  more  gen- 
eral intelligence  and  civilization  are  promoted.  Some  races 
are  more  disposed  to  savagism  and  barbarism  than  others, 
9Jid  per  c<mtra  it  is  the  same  with  civilization ;  certain  nations 
and  races  take  more  kindly  to  it  than  others.  Some  races 
are  better  mechanics  than  others,  and  some  will  gain  a 
higher  altitude  in  learning  and  science  than  others.  The 
more  intercourse  is  promoted,  the  more  nearly  all  nations 
become  one  nation  or  one  family,  the  better  for  alL 

Are  our  laws  Christian  laws  ?  By  no  means.  The  better 
part  of  them  are  from  the  Bomans,  while  our  most 
cherished  institutions,  as  trial  by  jury,  voting  by  ballot, 
etc,  eta,  are  of  ancient  Teutonic,  Saxon,  and  Pagan 
origui,  probably  handed  down  from  the  Druids  of  Northern 
Eorope.  In  the  extreme  Christian  countries  in  Southern 
Europe,  trial  by  jury  is  hardly  known  even  at  the  present 
day.  It  is  as  unjust  for  Christianity  to  claim  the  paternity 
of  our  civilization  as  of  modem  science.  Moslemism  is 
quite  as  much  entitled  to  the  honor  as  is  Christianity,  but 
neither  that  nor  any  system  of  religion  is  the  soorce  ct 


VBB  UOMFUttBT-BKNNSTT  DISOUBBIOir. 

Church,  but  I  cannot  see  how  you  can  get  by  it.  It  looks 
bad  for  a  man  to  deny  his  own  mother  and  accuse  her  of 
base  conduct  When  a  person  "  goes  back  "  on  his  mater- 
nal parent  he  is  regarded  as  being  in  a  depraved  condition. 
That  the  Romish  Church  is  the  parent  of  the  Protestant 
Church  is  too  patent  to  be  questioned  for  a  moment.  As 
much  as  you  are  disposed  to  condemn  her  for  her  murders 
and  persecutions,  she  is  still  your  mother.  Every  dogma, 
every  point  of  faith  is  retained  by  you ;  you  have  added 
nothing  to  the  old  system. 

You  would  have  it  appear  that  the  Greek  Church  has  not 
been  inimical  to  science.  If  she  has  not  taken  as  much 
pains  to  fight  it  as  the  Romish  division  has  done,  her 
friendship  for  science  has  not  been  of  such  an  ardent  char- 
acter as  to  induce  her  to  make  any  special  advance  in  its 
pursuit  I  believe  the  Greek  Church  to  this  day  has  not 
distinguished  herself  in  scientific  education. 

I  freely  admit  that  many  Christians  in  the  last  two  cen- 
turies have  been  friendly  to  learning  and  science,  and  that 
many  have  done  much  to  increase  the  facilities  of  popular 
education ;  but  this  did  not  come  from  their  ardent  Chris- 
tianity or  their  love  for  ecclesiaaticism.  It  arose  from  their 
Liberalism  and  the  spirit  of  progress  and  the  genuine  love 
of  humanity  inherent  in  their  natures.  Despite  the  selfish- 
ness and  intolerance  of  the  dogmas  of  Christianity,  which 
causes  its  votaries  to  believe  they  are  going  to  heaven  with 
a  select  few  to  sing  the  joyful  song  of  Moses  and  the 
Lamb  through  a  blessed  eternity  while  countless  millions, 
by  nature  as  good  as  themselves  will  be  doomed  to  roast  for 
countless  ages,  numerous  Christians  who  from  lack  of 
knowing  better,  have  accepted  the  creed  in  which  they 
were  born  and  educated,  have  evinced  the  grand  character- 
istics of  love  of  their  kind  which  have  actuated  good  men 
in  all  ages  of  the  world  and  in  all  systems  of  religion.  It 
is  no  more  Christianity  than  other  forms  of  creed  that 
eaose  nieii  to  feel  these  implulses  or  to  act  upon  them,  but 


THB  HnMPHRST-BSHNSTT  DISCUSnON. 


189 


V 


It  is  the  grand  spirit  of  Liberalism  which  has  shown  itself 
in  spite  of  religions  and  creeds— Christianity  as  well  ■■ 
others. 

I  think  no  charge  can  be  brought  against  you  for  not 
claiming  enough  for  your  pet  system.  Like  your  brethren, 
you  claim  for  it  not  only  all  the  advancement  science  has 
made,  but  civilization,  free  government,  etc.,  as  well.  Our 
government  is  often  called  a  Christian  government,  and  our 
popular  institutions  are  called  Christian  institutions.  These 
claims  are  untenable.  Civilization  ia  not  dependent  upon 
any  creed  nor  upon  any  form  of  religion.  Buckle  and 
Draper  have  consistently  shown  that  climate,  meteor- 
ology, soil,  and  formation  of  country  have  had  much  to 
do  with  modifying  civilization.  Race  and  customs  are  also 
important  factors  in  the  process.  The  more  the  different 
races  of  men  are  brought  into  contact,  the  more  the  mind  is 
stimulated  and  rendered  active  by  other  minds,  the  more  gen- 
eral intelligence  and  civilization  are  promoted.  Some  races 
are  more  disposed  to  savagism  and  barbarism  than  others, 
BMd  per  contra  it  is  the  same  with  civilization ;  certain  nations 
and  races  take  more  kindly  to  it  than  others.  Some  races 
are  better  mechanics  than  others,  and  some  will  gain  a 
higher  altitude  in  learning  and  science  than  others.  The 
more  intercourse  is  promoted,  the  more  nearly  all  nations 
become  one  nation  or  one  family,  the  better  for  all 

Are  our  laws  Christian  laws  ?  By  no  means.  The  better 
part  of  them  are  from  the  Romans,  while  our  most 
cherished  institutions,  as  trial  by  jury,  voting  by  ballot, 
etc.,  etc.,  are  of  ancient  Teutonic,  Saxon,  and  Pagan 
orlghi,  probably  handed  down  from  the  Druids  of  Northern 
Europe.  In  the  extreme  Christian  countries  in  Southern 
Europe,  trial  by  jury  is  hardly  known  even  at  the  present 
day.  It  is  as  unjust  for  Christianity  to  claim  the  paternity 
of  our  civilization  as  of  modern  science.  Moslemism  is 
quite  as  much  entitled  to  the  honor  as  is  Christianity,  but 
neither  that  nor  any  system  of  religion  is  the  source  of 


\ 


mo 


THB  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


civUizatioQ  and  scieace.    They  come  not  from  creeds,  re- 
Ugions,  nor  mythologies.    They  come  not  from  a  belief  in 
mysUcisms,  superstitions,  or  supernaturalism.    They  are 
the  legitimate  heritage  of  man,  despite  of  ecclesiasticism, 
priestcraft,  and  faith.    It  is  a  weighty  question  whether 
religions  have  not  greatly  retarded  the  progress  of  civUiaa- 
tion,  science,  and  menUl  liberty.    So  far  as  they  haYo 
cramped  and  bound  the  mind  of  man,  so  far  as  they  have 
curtaUed  the  right  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  thought  they 
have  doubtless  done  it    You  and  many  others  think  that 
religion  is  the  great  panacea,  the  great  savior  of  the  world. 
I  do  not.    The  world  has  had  far  too  much  of  religion.    It 
has  been  the  bUghting  curse  of  thirty  centuries.    I  turn 
lovingly  and  confidently  to  science,  mental  freedom,  and 
civilizaUon.    These  liberate  the  human  intellect,  loosen  the 
mental  fetters,  and  render  mankind  blessed  and  free. 

Does  it  please  you  that  scientific  men  have  their  Uttla 
differences,  and  that  they  are  sometimes  impadent  with 
each  other  ?    Unlike  theologians,  their  contests  are  blood- 
less.    They  do  not  take  life.    How  different  the  contesU 
of  scientists  and  ecclesiastics  1  The  former  are  usually  bound 
together  by  the  Ues  of  fraternal  regard,  while  the  wars 
of  the  latter  have  literally  deluged  the  earth  with  blood. 
From  seventy-five  to  one  hundred  millions  of  men,  women, 
and  children  have  been  deprived  of  life  by  Christian  wars.' 
Science  has  never  demanded  a  single  human  life.    Chris- 
tianity made  slaughter,  murder,  and  torture  her  principal 
business  for  more  than  a  thousand  years.    You  do  injustice 
to  Prof.  Huxley.    I  think  he  has  not  been  badly  out  of 
humor  with  any  brother  scientist    He  is  a  gentleman  of  an 
equable  mind,  and  not  liable  to  fly  into  a  passion. 

You  speak  of  the  icebergs  of  science  as  they  come  slowly 
floating  down  from  the  great  Northern  Ocean,  cold,  creak- 
ing, and  massive,  but  gently  melting  in  the  warm  southern 
sun.  You  deem  them  unfit  places  upon  which  to  erect 
habitations.    You  say  they  are  bright  with  borrowed  light  j 


THE  HUMPHBEY-BENNETT  DISCVSSION, 


191 


btti  5011  are  again  sadly  mistaken.  Astronomy,  geology, 
natutal  p'nilosophy,  chemistry,  and  mathematics  do  not 
shine  ^Ith  borrowed  or  false  light.  Nor  are  they  icebergs. 
They  are  rathei  luminaries  which  shine  with  the  steady 
brilliance  of  tne  sun.  Neither  are  they  lessening  in  size, 
nor  melting  away.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  growing  and 
spreading,  attracting  more  and  more  attention,  and  doing 
more  and  more  good. 

I  fancy  the  iceberg  that  crossed  your  vision  was  the  huge 
body  of  ecclesiasticism,  mysticism,  and  theological  fiction. 
This  miserable  iceberg  has,  for  thousands  of  years,  been 
floating  around  in  the  great  sea  of  humanity,  and  for  many 
centuries  the  old  giant  mass  grew  and  spread  in  every  direc- 
tion, but  thanks  to  the  glorious  orbs  of  science,  intelligence, 
and  truth,  that  great  body  of  ice  is  steadily  melting  away. 
Its  days  are  numbered.  In  comparatively  a  few  decades  it 
will  be  so  reduced  in  size  that  it  will  neither  obstruct  oui 
view  of  the  horizon  and  the  heavenly  bodies,  nor  be  a  hin- 
drance to  the  free  navigation  of  the  teeming  waters  of  life. 

I  am  glad  to  see  you  quoting  so  freely  from  Prof.  Drapei. 
Let  me  urge  you  as  a  friend  to  quote  him  often,  and  read  him 
closely.  You  can  hardly  find  a  safer  authority.  I  would 
gladly  have  quoted  him  more  fully  in  this  letter,  but  I  have 
been  so  diffuse  that  I  have  allowed  myself  very  little  spacb 
for  the  purpose.  1  cannot,  however,  forego  the  temptation 
to  make  a  single  quotation  from  the  last  paragraph  of  his 
Conflict  between  Religion  and  Science:  *'As  to  the  issue  of 
the  coming  conflict,  can  any  one  doubt?  Whatever  is  resting 
on  flction  and  fraud  will  be  overthrown.  Institutions  thai 
organize  impostures  and  spread  delusions  must  show  what 
right  they  have  to  exist  Faith  must  render  an  account  of 
herself  to  Reason.  Mysteries  must  give  place  to  facts.  Re- 
ligion must  relinquish  that  imperious,  that  domineering 
position  which  she  has  so  long  maintained  against  science. 
There  must  be  absolute  freedom  for  thought  The  ecclesi- 
astic niust  learn  to  kisep  himself  within  the  domain  he  has 


4^^^4^ 


m 


rm  HDiiPHi«Y.B«innnPT  wscussioir. 


choMn.  and  cease  to  tyrannize  ow  the  DhIlofl««h*.  «w 

wiu  Dear  such  interference  no  longer. " 

Pardon  me  once  more  for  writing  so  lone  a  letter     t 
hare  endeavored  to  confine  myself  toTho  „'    f 

and  to  correct  your  numerouTrrll™  f   '^         ^°"  "''"'*' 
a  mwl  H«.i  -v#  numerous  errors  has  necessarily  taken 

a  good  deal  of  space.    Like  yourself.  I  am  willing  ,„  leave 
It  with  our  readers  as  to  Which  has  the  truth  on  iS^dl 
I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  Scripture  theo-TofTot 
mosony  on  which  Judaism  and  ChristianUy  are  folded  a^d 

Wk  l^rr"""'  "'""^ '•''**  ^0™  Paruof^hfsle 
Zs  Z  ^^  ""^""^  *"  ""«  P''^'  ^^'"'Wngs  of  sci! 
e«»  and  common  sense.  Ton  have  studiously  avoided 
tmng  to  reconcile   the  discrepancy,  and,  a.  I  ^Heve 

i^nr  '"!!^  "^'"^  «■"  tapo^ssibimy  of  do^-^: 

caUom,  of  science.  I  caH  upon  you  to  perform  the  task     If 
you  fa.1  to  attempt  this  work  our  refers  may  ftSJ^mf" 
,  that  you  shrink  from  the  undertaking  ^ 

I  have  attempted  to  diow  that  Christianity  ha.  wt  been 
the  fnend  and  foster-parent  of  «,lence;  that  Oh/Sa^ 
absolutely  dragged  the  civilized  world  irom  a  sta^e  whew 
leaxning.  science,  and  phUosophy  h«i  long  held  s^'ytwn 
^Ignorance,  faith  and  degrad^ion;  that  when  Si^uJ 

did  nothmg  for  science  and  education,  but  bound  tte  heavv 

Zp  esLd  lei'  /''"•  <^''''««'«"'y''«<l  effectually 

suppressed  leammg  and  science  in  its  own  domain    u^ 

enemies,  the  Mohammedans,  were  establishing  sch^rVo. 
t«nng  earning,  and  proving  themselves  the  fast  fUend    'f 
education  and  culture,  that  it  was  this  class  orp;i,e  thai 
preserved  science,  and  then  generously  bestowed  U  upon 
tte  Christie,  world.    While  many  Christians  of  "ate  have 

friendly  to  it.  thqr  «w  on^y  be  looked  upon  «  «i,^ted 


|i 


THB  SUlfFHBBT-BBKNSTT  DI80XJBSIOK. 


103 


tons,  and  in  embracing  science  they  lunre  to  that  extent 
proved  recreant  to  the  original  precepts  and  practices  of 
Christianity. 

I  am  sincerely  yours, 

D.  !£.  Bbstrbtt. 


Tta  aOMFuitST-BKinfBarT  ducituioh. 


IM 


] 


PART    III. 

U  THEM  A  StbonOHB   PROBABILITY  THAT  THB  BiBLB  US 
BlYINB  THAN  THAT  InFIDBLITT  IB  TbUB  f 

MR.     HUUPHRBT* 

Mr.  D.  M.  Bennett.  Dear  Bir:  As  the  vigflant  farmer 
walks  around  his  fields  after  a  windstorm  has  passed  over 
them,  to  replace  here  a  fallen  board,  and  to  readjust  there  a 
leaning  post,  so  I  will  have  to  glance  over  my  last  letter, 
after  the  gust  of  your  **  Reply  "  has  swept  over  it,  to  pml 
things  back  where  they  properly  belong. 

Since  you  have  asked  the  question,  I  will  explain  why 
some  religious  people  wish  to  insert  a  recognition  of  God 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  :  It  is  to  protect  it 
from  misunderstanding  and  perversion,  in  the  face  of 
recent  Atheistic  claims  in  regard  to  it.  The  Christians  of 
eighty  years  ago  did  not  think  of  such  an  insertion,  although 
they  were  more  particular  about  such  matters  than  the 
Christians  of  to-day.  This  shows  that  in  their  time  the 
Constitution  was  not  viewed  by  anybody  as  an  Infidel  docu- 
ment. Perversion  of  a  law  often  necessitates  an  amend- 
ment, not  to  change  its  character,  but  to  bring  it  back  to 
its  original  scope  and  meaning. 

You  failed  to  strengthen  your  claim  to  Peter  Cooper.  I 
wiU  only  add  that  there  is  not  a  copy  of  Paine's  works  in 
the  Cooper  Institute,  whUe  there  are  plenty  of  Bibles  on  the 


tables  of  the  reading-room.    Does  this  look  as  if  he  were 
•*  one  of  your  kind  T" 

All  you  have  said  of  Cornell  University  can  be  disproved 
from  the  pen  of  President  White  himself.  "  Referring  to  it, 
he  says  :  "  I  might  picture  to  you  the  strategy  which  has 
been  used  to  keep  earnest  young  men  from  an  institution 
which,  it  is  declared,  cannot  be  Christian  because  it  is  not 
sectarian.  ...  I  might  show  how  it  has  been  denounced 
by  the  friends  and  agents  of  denominational  colleges  and 
In  many  sectarian  journals ;  how  the  mo8t  preposteroitM 
cTujvrget  have  been  made  and  believed  by  good  men ;  how 
the  epithets  of  'godless,' 'infidel.'  'irreligious,'  'unrelig- 
ious,'  'atheistic'  have  been  hurled  against  9k  body  of  Chrii^ 
Uan  trustees,  profeuan,  and  ttuderiu  "  (Warfare  of  Science, 
p.  144). 

The  silence  of  Herodotus  about  Jerusalem  does  not  prove 
that  that  metropolis  was  insignificant.  It  might  be  shown 
in  the  same  way  precisely  that  Rome  was  an  obscure, 
'•  semi-barbarous  '*  town.  Herodotus  did  not  visit  it,  neither 
did  he  say  a  word  about  it.  Your  argument  is  a  specimen 
of  proving  nothing  by  proving  too  much. 

It  is  pleasing  to  see  you  beginning  to  give  the  names  of 
some  of  your  informants.  I  say  leginning;  for  you  still 
attempt  to  establish  some  of  your  points  by  an  appeal  to 
the  testimony  of  "a  friend,"  "a  gentleman,"  "a  trust- 
worthy party,"  and  "a  personal  friend."  I  entertain  no 
disrespect  for  your  friends  ;  but  in  a  controversy  like  this 
everything  should  be  above-board.  Anonymous  testimony 
Is  as  worthless  here  as  it  would  be  in  a  civil  court. 

You  still  ignore  the  distinction  between  Protestantism  and 
Catholicism.  This  is  neither  philosophical  nor  ingenuous. 
There  is  neither  sympathy,  connection,  nor  codperation  be- 
tween the  two.  Would  it  be  right  to  hold  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  responsible  for  all  the  past  acts  of 
Great  Britain,  even  if  the  latter  is  in  some  sense  our 
«*  mother  countiy  "?   So  it  is  a  flagrant  injustice  to  charge 


TM  HUMFRHBr-Bunnn  Dnonnoir. 

the  two  Innocent  action,  of  Cirirtendom  with  the  em,« 
»nd  ioiqaltiea  of  Romanism. 

trnVif-  ""'•  *'/°V"«'*"»«t«.  "y  •  dlsreapectful  word  of 

2„.^^rH     .T'"  "'^''"^*"  *"^'  ">«  adulterated  and 
counterfeited  article. 

ril°" '"fh "'''V*^ """°'"*°*  '•^'""«  ".emi-barba- 
utterly  drnproved  this.  How  could  they  be  ".emi-barba- 
n««  after  aojouming  for  centuries  in  Egypt,  at  that  time 
tte  most  cmUzed  country  in  the  world  f    How  could  they 

™Jr""'jT™" ''"""'  "''^^«"»  •-«"'«  the  first  t^ 

^Z^h?K.^'^  "''''«"«*  How  could  they  be 
«m.-barba„ans."  and  be  f«niUar  with  "many  book,  f" 
OBcoxa  130  How  could  they  be  "  wmi-barbarian.  '•  «»« 
Po««»  such  a  collection  of  wit  and  wi«lom  «i  the  book  of 
Rorerbs  f    How  could  they  be  "aeml  barbarians  "  when 

tt^f  w  "T"!*'^'"'  '^  •'"'^  *^'  '^y  »'  J**".  «!  idea 
that  has  made  Darwin  famous  ?    I  refer  to  the  "  ;.rIatlou 
of  species  under  domestication  »  (Gen.  xxi  87-48)     How 
could  th^be  "semi-barbariami..  when,  queen  of  Sheba 
^c«ne  from  the  uttermost  parU  of  the  earth  to  hear  the 
w^om  of  Solomon  »,    How  could  they  be  "  semi-bari 
runa    and  have  one  of  the  grandest  Temples  on  the  face 
of  the  earth  t    The  difficulty  to  beUere  in  the  real  exist- 
ence  of  such  a  Temple  is  entirely  remored  by  the  fact  that 
we  have  the  architectural  fia»  of  that  Temple  to^ay  in  the 
Je^h  Scriptures.    As  we  would  underst«.d  that  the  ag. 
of  Pencles  was  famous  for  its  Art.  even  if  we  had  nothing 
to  show  It  except  the  conceptions  of  Phidias  expressed  in 
plans,  sketches,  and  drawings,  so  we  know  from  the  con- 
ception  and  plan  of  a  magnillcent  Temple,  still  before  us  in 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  that  Solomon's  wu  a  Golden  Aite. 
As  to  the  remain,  of  that  edifice,  antiquarians  diiagL 

ir^.„l  '*"~''^'"^''"'«»'»'y  <«««'er. 

«•  yet  to  be  ■een.    Hitherto,  whrtwer  wm  Imagined  to  bi 


YHS  HtJMPHBEY-BBKNETT  Ol8Ctt88l09. 


197 


a  relic  of  the  ancient  civilization,  has  either  been  destroyed 
by  prejudice  or  carried  away  by  superstition.  Still,  Prof. 
Rawson  stands  almost  alone  among^  travelers  in  saying  that 
there  are  no  indications  of  an  ancient  civiliaation  in  Pal- 
estine. 

Now  as  to  the  "mythical  theory'':  it  certainly  is  on  the 
wane.  Baur,  Bauer  and  Strauss  are  falling  into  disrepute. 
The  halls  of  Tabiagen  are  emptier  than  of  yore.  Dr. 
Schliemann's  **Troy  and  its  Remains"  is  showing  that 
much  of  what  the  world  had  consigned  to  Mythology  may, 
after  all,  belong  properly  to  History. 

Were  I  disposed  to  taunt  you,  I  would  still  insist  that 
Paine  was  a  *'myth.*'  Doubtless  you  saw  what  somebody 
toid  had  been  Paine's  grave.  How  did  your  informant  know 
that  the  person  who  carried  the  remains  (?)  away  was  Wm. 
Oobbett  ?  How  do  you  know  that  those  men  who  said  they 
had  '*  conversed  with  Paine "  were  not  deceived  ?  Have 
you  not  seen  men  who  thought  as  firmly  that  they  had 
"conversed  *'  with  ghosts  ?  The  story  of  Paine's  skeleton 
hanging  in  a  book-store,  and  then  taken  into  a  pottery  to  be 
ground,  and  mixed  with  clay,  to  be  *'made  into  ornaments, 
trinkets  and  keepsakes,'*  is  at  once  horrible  and  incredible. 
Paine — if  such  a  man  ever  existed — was  treated  about  as 
disrespectfully  and  barbarously  as  Hypatia.  I  guess.  Bro. 
Bennett,  you  will  have  to  settle  down  in  the  conclusion  that 
Thomas  Paine  was  a  '*  myth,*'  since  it  is  as  difficult  to  find 
his  **  remains  "  as  those  of  Solomon's  Temple. 

Your  dialogue  between  **  Christianity  "  and  **  Science  " 
is  an  innocent  little  thing.  I  have  only  to  say  that  "  Chris- 
tianity,'* in  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  has  either  been 
incorrectly  reported,  or  else  it  has  been  personated  by  an 
enemy.   I  repudiate  your  ventriloquous  dialogue  altogether. 

Tour  attempt  to  wash  the  "  damned  spots  *'  of  blood  from 
the  hands  of  the  French  "Freethinkers'*  is,  of  course,  an 
utter  failure.  Seas  of  sophistry  and  explanations  can 
neither  scrub  them  out  nor  cover  them  up.    The  **  Reign  of 


'»T 


198 


«H«  HmO'HBBT-BBRRBTT  DIflCtJSSION. 


I* 


K: 


Terror"  wis  nothiii;  more  than  " Freethought »»  embodied 
in  free  deeds.  Many  of  the  leaders  of  that  •*  Reign  "  were 
Atheists.  Several  of  them,  however,  and  notably  Robes- 
pierre and  Paine,  believed  in  the  existence  of  a  God.  But 
they  were  all  Infideli  of  some  description. 

You  affect  great  nausea  over  some  of  the  plain  narrative 
of  the  Bible.    It  is  true  the  sacred  writers  were  more  anx- 
ious  to  give  the  wliale  truih  than  to  accommodate  deranged 
stomachs.    But  will  you  please  explain  why  Infidels  are  so 
much  given  to  placing  their  hands  on  their  noses  when  they 
approach  the  Bible,  while  they  regard  greater  stenches  la 
their  own  authors  as  sweet  bouquets.    Rousseau's  writings 
are  full  of  the  grossest  indecencies.    Some  of  Michelet's 
works  seethe  with  sensuality.    A  great  deal  of  Byron's 
poetry  is  saturated  with  impurity.    Voltaire's  PuceUe  stinks 
with  obscenity.    Diderot's  Bijom  IndiwreU  is  simply  a  lit 
eraiy  dunghill.    Some  of  Dumas*  novels  are  unfit  for  the 
walls  of  a  water-closet.  As  Theodore  Parker  said,  "there 
.was  mUn9§  tflawness"  about  your  Pope,  Thomas  Paine* 
Tictoria  WoodhuU— another  "Liberal"  champion— hae 
been  delivering  her  tongue— I  wiU  not  say  mindr^f  such 
stuff  as  might  well  bring  the  blush  to  the  cheeks  of  rake- 
hells  and  strumpets.    Yes,  and  *'  rtform  "  Journals  Uke  the 
Boston  Investigator  and  The  Tbuth  Seeker  contain  weekly 
advertisements  of    "Marriage   Guides,"    "Plain  Talks," 
••Sexual  Physiology,"  and  " Spermatorrhea "  doctors  (?)r 
Even  my  esteemed  Friend  Bennett  has  defended  and  lion- 
iaed  men  like  John  A.  Lant,  George  Francis  Train,  E.  B. 
Poote  and  Charies  Bradlaugh,  who  have  been  convicted  of 
circulating  obscene  literature.    All  this  shows  that  "Free, 
thinkers  "  feign  vomiting  over  the  "indelicacy"  of  the  Bible, 
not  because  they  are  of  such  exquisite  refinement  and 
dainty  modesty,  but  because  they  want  some  excuse  for  op. 
posing  a  book  whieh  they  dislike  for  other  reasona 


THE  HT7MFHB8T-BENNBTT  DISOUBfllOK. 


199 


Our  third  proposition  is  as  follows :  That  there  is  a 
Stbongeb  Probability  that  the  Bqlb  is  Divine  thak 

THEBB  IS  THAT  InPIDELITY  IS  TbUE. 

I.  I  will  base  my  first  argument  on  Phrenology.  I  do 
this  mainly  because  the  teachers  of  that  system  persist  in 
calling  it  a  "  science,"  and  because  many  Infidels  profess  to 
accept  it.  We  are  taught  that  the  •*  Moral  and  Religious 
Faculties"  occupy  the  central  and  highest  place  in  the 
brain.  They  constitute  what  is  termed  the  **  crown  of  the 
head."  A  symmetrical  and  "large"  development  of  these 
faculties  is  indispensable  to  a  perfect  manhood  (Fowler's 
Phrenology,  pp.  123-159).  How  dtformed  a  human  being 
would  be  with  the  top  of  his  head  scooped  out  half  way  to 
his  ears!  But  that  is  what  a  consistent  Infidel  would  call  a 
faultless  cranium!  This  is  not  the  only  sense  in  which  Inft- 
delity  would  fain  deprive  man  of  his  erawn, 

2.  Infidelity  is  always  flattering  human  nature.  We  hear 
a  great  deal  about  the  nobleness  of  the  natural  heart,  and 
about  the  '•  Oracle  of  reason."  If  we  may  take  the  Infiders. 
word  for  it,  the  average  sentiment  of  mankind  is  perhaps 
the  highest  standard  of  Truth. 

I  am  willing  to  decide  our  case  in  this  court  of  appeals. 
There  is  an  innate  and  indestructible  conviction  in  the 
average  mind  that  Godliness  is  better  than  Godlessness;  that 
Piousness  is  better  than  Impiousness;  that  Religion  is  better 
than  Irreligion ;  that  Puritanism  is  better  than  Impuritan* 
ism;  that  Fidelity  is  better  than  Infidelity. 

8.  Infidelity  cannot  be  true  because  it  is  not  self-consiS' 
tent.  What  can  be  more  contradictory  than  Atheism  and 
Pantheism?  Materialism  and  Spiritualism?  Positivism  and 
Nihilism?  These  cardinal  isme  do  not  differ  merely  on  the 
surface,  and  in  non-essentials.  They  are  antagonistic  and 
irreconcilable  in  their  heart  of  hearts.  They  cannot,  there 
fore,  all  be  right.  But  which  is  true?  That  is  a  question 
which  can  never  be  settled  on  the  Infidel  principle.  A  de- 
cision, declared  by  any  one,  would  be  "  dogmatism  " ;  and 


I 


I 


800 


THE  HTJMPHBET- BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  HtJMPHRET-BEKNKTT  DISCX788ION. 


Mi 


••  dogmatism/'  we  are  told,  has  no  place  in  the  world  of 
"Liberalism." 

4.  Infidelity  is  inferior  to  tSie  Scriptures  because  that,  from 
its  very  nature,  it  is  disintegrating  and  disorganmng.  You  can- 
not constitute  government  of  any  kind  without  forming  and 
adopting  a  code  of  laws.  But  the  moment  you  do  that  you 
encroach  on  the  "sovereignty  of  the  individual."  The 
citizen  is  not  then  permitted  to  follow  his  own  Inclination 
in  all  the  affairs  of  life.  In  other  words,  a  civil  creed  has 
been  made  for  him;  and  that  is  unutterably  repugnant  to 
** liberal"  notions.  In  the  language  of  a  modern  Atheist, 
noted  for  his  diarrhcBa  ttrborum^  "  Every  creed  is  a  rock  in 
running  water;  humanity  sweeps  by  it  Every  creed  cries 
to  the  Universe  '  Halt  I*  A  creed  is  the  ignorant  past  bully- 
ing the  enlightened  present."  As  mankind  is  everywhere 
adopting  not  only  religious  but  social  and  civil  creeds— lawa 
and  constitutions— it  is  plain  that  Infidelity  is  an  enemy  to 
compabU  and  organizations  of  all  kindi.  If  **  Freethinkers" 
are  law-abiding  citizens,  it  is  became  they  are  inconsistent 
They  withhold  from  civil  enactments  the  objections  which 
they  bring  against  every  rdigiouM  declaration  of  principles. 
Were  the  Infidel  doctrine  to  be  applied  simultaneously  to 
e^enfihinQ,  the  whole  world  would  be  in  a  state  of  hope- 
less anarchy  in  twenty-four  hooiil 

But  in  spite  of  Ita  inoonsistencies  and  restraints,  (he  dis- 
solving and  disorganizing  character  of  Unbelief  is  very 
manifest  Pore  Infidelity  has  produced  no  ''Orders," 
"Brotherhoods," or  "Societies."  It  has  created  noinsti- 
Intions  of  charity  or  learning.  Of  course,  it  is  doing  iU 
utmost  to  annihilate  the  Church.  Its  self-styled  "  advanced 
thinkers"  are  endeavoring  to  sever  the  golden  bonds  of  the 
family.  The  most  godless  nation  within  the  limits  of  civ- 
ilization—the French— are  the  most  seditious  and  ungovern- 
able. The  history  and  the  teachings  of  Infidelity  prove 
that  its  tendency  is  to  universal  disinteRratlon  and  decom- 
position—that  is,  universal  death,  since  death  is  only  disso- 


lution. But  this  is  an  evidence  of  its  dangerous  and 
destructive  character.  What  can  men  accomplish  merely 
AS  individuals?  Where  may  man  find  joy  and  blessedness 
as  he  can  within  the  sacred  covenants  of  Friendship  and 
Wedlock?  What  hour  was  more  auspicious  to  the  world 
than  that  in  which  "  We  the  People"  took  a  solemn  oath 
to  honor,  obey,  and  defend  our  National  Confession  of 
Faith— the  Constitution  of  the  United  States? 

The  Bible  encourages  by  precept  and  example  Hie  organic- 
ing  Principle,  It  gives  no  uncertain  sound  as  to  the  sanc- 
tity and  inviolability  of  the  Family.  It  teaches  obedience 
to  lawfully- constituted  and  righteously-administered  govern^ 
mcnt.  It  has  created  the  Church  to  promote  man's  moral 
and  spiritual  well-being.  It  teaches  that  "  in  union  there  is 
strength." 

In  the  proportion  that  an  organizing  and  integrating,  t.  e. 
a  f>ital  Principle  is  superior  to  a  disorganizing  and  disinte- 
grating, i.  «.,  SL  fatal  Principle,  the  Holy  Bible  is  superior  to 
Infidelity. 

5.  The  Bible  inculcates  and  Christians  exercise  more  Sin- 
ct7*%  than  Infidels  practice.  The  words  "sincere,"  "sin- 
cerely," and  "sincerity  "are  found  about  sixteen  times  in 
King  James'  Version.  The  same  idea  is  set  forth  by  many 
equivalents  in  words  and  phrases.  Insincerity  is  one  of  the 
tilings  which  the  Sacred  Writings  condemn  most  unspar- 
ingly. 

How  the  Apostles  showed  the  depth  of  their  convictions 
by  their  incessant  laborsl  How  subsequent  believers  have 
evinced  their  earnestness  by  their  adherence  to  principle, 
even  under  persecution  and  in  death  I  The  myriad  churches 
of  Christendom  attest  the  sincerity  of  those  who  erected 
them.  Doubtless  the  wolf  of  hypocrisy  has  stolen  often- 
times among  the  sheep.  But  notwithstanding  all,  the  Chris- 
lian  Church  exhibits  far  more  Sincerity  than  her  opponents. 

A  great  many  Infidels  have  betrayed  their  life-long  hypoc- 
risy l^  their  death-bed  misgivings  and  confessions.    Others 


I 


1 

r 


I 


m  vm  mvFBBXT-BBnnm  sbboubsioii. 

liaTe  shown  either  fear,  duplicity,  or  both,  by  not  announc- 
ing their  yiews  until  the  dose  of  their  liyee.    Dr.  Johnson 
used  to  say  that  **  Bolingbroke  was  a  scoundrel  and  a  coward; 
he  loaded  a  blunderbuss  against  Christianity  which  he  had 
not  the  courage  to  fire  during  his  life-time,  but  left  half  a 
down  to  a  hungry  Scotsman  to  draw  the  trigger  after  he 
was  dead."    And  Thomas  Paine,  about  whose  "  honest  con- 
Tictions"  and  **  boldness  **  we  hear  90  much,  saii  he  believed 
it  would  be  best  to  postpone  the  publication  of  his  Deistical 
thoughts  ^*ta  the  latter  part  of  life.*'    If  these  men  really 
belieyed  that  the  principles  they  had  to  disseminate  would 
be  a  blessing  to  the  world,  was  it  not  a  erims  to  withhold 
them  so  long?  and  did  their  delay  not  proTC  either  that  they 
did  not  care  about  benefiting  mankind,  or  that  they  did 
not  themselves  believe  what  they  had  to  sayf 

The  insincerity  of  Infidels  is  shown  farther  by  the  scanti- 
ness of  their  efforts  to  propagate  their  ideas.  Avowedly 
Infidel  Journals  are  not  well  supported.  '^Freethought 
Lecturers  "  have  to  do  a  prodigious  amount  of  advertising, 
drumming  up,  and  indirect  self-puffing,  in  order  to  squeeze 
<Hit  a  sufilcient  number  of  engagements  to  keep  them  in  mo» 
tion.  All  the  Infidels  in  America  have  not  zeal  enough  to 
remove  the  debtincubus  (|70,000)  from  the onl§ structure 
between  the  two  oceans  erected  and  dedicated  to  the  mem- 
oiy  of  Paine  t  In  the  great  eity  of  New  York,  the  InfideU 
have  never  founded  a  building  for  their  own  use.  The  most 
they  have  done  was  to  **  hhre  a  hall.**  JLnd  even  in  that 
they  have  not  exhibited  much  generoeity.  * '  SonoiCB  HallI*' 
That  mmndi  ^ell  a  thousand  miles  away.  But  when  the  place 
it  actually  visited,  it  will  be  found  to  be  a  dingy  little  back 
room  with  neither  scientist  nor  scientific  apparatus  near 
it.  If  it  is  so  important  that  the  world  should  know 
the  doctrines  of  Deism,  Atheism,  Spiritualism,  Materialism, 
Free-Love,  etc,  why  is  it  that  the  Infidels  of  Europe  and 
America  do  not  keep  a  legion  of  home  and  foreign  mission- 
aries continually  at  workf   It  10  trae  Mr.  InijersoU— having 


THB  HUlfFHBBT-SKNrarr  DlSCfJWIOlf . 


203 


nothing  else  to  do— has  gone  to  the  CaUfornia  heathen  to 
tell  them  ai)out  hii  "GhoeU**  and  "  Bob"-goblin8.  But 
alas  I  his  glad  tidings  are  not  for  the  poor.  There  is  an 
'•Admission  Fiftt  Cbnts*'  between  the  masses  and  the 
"i^Vw-thoughts"  of  the  '*  Iree-thihker."  And  then,  Mr. 
Ingersoll  is— I  hope  I  give  no  offense— only  one  man.  The 
laborers  are  indeed  few  on  the  Infidel  field.  All  this  goes 
to  show  how  shallow  and  inactive  is  the  conviction  and  sin- 
cerity of  skeptics  generally. 

Other  things  being  equal,  the  greater  the  sincerity,  the 
greater  the  merit.    But  "  other  things  "  are  equal,  and  more 
than  equal  on  the  side  of  the  Bible  and  iU  believers.    Hence, 
the  superior  Sincerity  of  Christians,  as  compared  with  Unbe- 
lievers, goes  to  establish  the  aflirmative  of  our  proposition. 
6.  There  is  another  fact  worthy  of  serious  consideration: 
JmmoraiUy  it  eonmtent  with  Infidelity.    I  do  not  by  this  mean 
that  all  unbelievers  are  bad  men;  but  that,  if  they  were  so, 
no  one  would  feel  that  they  were  at  variance  with  "  Free- 
thought."    It  is  quite  true  that  many  professors  of  religion 
have  been  guilty  of  unlawful  practices.    But  everybody  felt 
that  they  were  acting  contrary  to  their  profession  and  prin- 
ciples.   Everybody  exclaimed,  J3bw  inconsistent/  Everybody 
thought  they  should  be  censured  or  excommunicated.    Ana 
the  Church  is  continually  doing  this.    Little  does  the  out- 
side and  fault-finding  world  know  of  her  concern  for  hei 
erring  ones.    But  it  ought  to  see  that  she  does  not  permit 
ain  to  pass  unnoticed.   You  and  other  Infidels  seem  to  take 
ecstatic  delight  in  recounting  the  vices  and  crimes  of  men 
who  were  once  ministers.    But  we  may  show  by  these  very 
men  the  infinite  superiority  of  Christianity  over  Infidelity. 
Even  suspicion  will  degrade  the  standing  of  a  clergymen. 
Those  who  have  been  convicted  of  immorality  have  been  de- 
posed. They  have  ceased  to  be  preachers;  and  it  is  improper 
to  speak  of  them  as  such.    This  fact,  backed  by  the  public 
sentiment,  proves  that  ImnwraHty  a?id  CAristianity  are  in- 
consistent. 


.(I 

I 


104 


1«B  HUMFBBBY-BUniETT  DnOmsiOlff. 


I 


But  with   Infidelity  it  is   not  so.    An   Infidel  cannot 
injure  Ms  standing,  as  an  Injldd,  by  anything  he  may 
do.    No  injustice  or  rileness  on  his  part  could  bring  man- 
kind to  feel  that  he  bad  violated  his  principles.    This  can 
be  shown  from  history.    Bolingbroke  could  be  a  ''notorious 
libertine";  Byron  could  be  a  scandalous  debauchee;  Shelley 
could  leave  his  wife,  even  when  she  was  with  child,  and 
break  her  heart  by  living  with  a  "companion";  Girard 
could  quarrel  with  his  wife  until  she  beeame  insane;  Ches- 
terfield eould  advise  his  bastard  son  to  be  a  whore-master; 
Rousseau  could  live  in  adultery,  and  send  his  illegitimate 
children  to  the  Foundling  Hospital;  Voltaire  could  perjure 
himself,  tamper  with  legal  documents,  spend  years  **pla- 
lonically "(?)   with   a   female  that  was   never  his  wife; 
Collins,  Ralph,  and  Keith  could  "greatly  wrong"  Franklin; 
John  Stuart  Mill  could  associate  with  a  "lady  friend" 
in  a  way  that  would  have  blasted  the  name  of  a  clergy- 
man; Auguste    Comte    could    mislead   a  living  woman, 
and  worship  a  dead   one;  Paine   could  live  with   Mrs. 
Bonneville,  and  be  ''godfather"  to  her  youngest  son  "who 
had  been  named  after  him";  Goethe  could  be  himself  the 
Mephistopheles  who  defiled  and  ruined  many  a  poor  Mar- 
guerete;  Gen.  Charles  Lee  could  be  unfaithful  to  his  trust; 
Tweed  could  steal  millions  from  the  city  of  New  York;  8. 
S.  Jones  could  seduce  another  man*8  wife;  Dr.  Dillingham 
could  be  indicted  for  practicing  abortion;  George  Francis 
Train   can  act  the  fool  to  his  hean*8  content;  Victoria 
Woodhull  can  be  the  quintessence  of  nastiness— all  these 
could  be  all  this,  and  nobody  thinks  any  the  less  of  Infidelity  I 
Nobody  ever  remarked  that  they  were  at  all  inconsistent 
with  "  Liberalism."    They  did  the  cause  no  harm. 

You  may  array  all  the  counter-charges  you  please.  But 
the  fact  will  still  remain  that  Christianity  condemns  immor- 
ality, while  Infidelity  is  consistent  with  it,  and  encouraging 
to  it.  This  was  the  deUberate  judgment  of  Franklin,  when 
he  said  in  his  Autobiography  thai  ''immorality  and  in- 


THE  HUMPHBET-BKNNBTT  DlSCUSSIOlf. 


205 


justice  migTU  have  been  expected  from  a  want  ofrdigion^^  and 
when  he  asked  in  one  of  his  letters:  "  If  men  are  so  wicked 
mth  religion,  what  would  they  be  without  it"? 

The  Bible,  that  prohibits  "all  appearance  of  evil,"  is 
certainly  superior  to  Infidelity,  which  is  both  inviting  to, 
and  consistent  with,  every  species  of  iniquity. 

7.  Infidels  are  full  of  all  the  short-comings  with  which 
they  charge  Christians.  They  are  bigoted.  It  is  said  that 
the  word  "  bigot "  originated  with  Rollo,  who,  when  he  was 
required  to  kiss  the  foot  of  King  Charles  in  return  for  the 
province  of  Neustria,  replied,  '*JVd«,  bi  G^<"— Not  so,  by 
G — d  In  this  sense  of  using  profane  language,  "  Freethink- 
ers "  are  generally  the  greatest  bigots  in  the  world.  Col. 
Ingersoll  is  "matchless"  at  cursing  and  swearing.  And 
they  are  bigoted  in  the  sense  of  being  "unreasonably  devoted 
to  a  system  or  party,  and  illiberal  toward  the  opinions  of 
others."  How  many  of  them  boast  that  they  never  go  in- 
side of  a  church  I  How  few  of  them  give  the  Christian 
side  a  candid  and  thorough  study  I  Such  books  as  I  men- 
tioned in  my  last  letter  are  not  examined  by  the  mass  of 
Infidels.  Many  of  them  heartily  hate  everything  and  every- 
body that  is  religious.    All  this  is  bigotry. 

Infidels  are  illiberal.  We  have  already  shown  that  they 
are  so  with  their  money.  They  have  endowed  scarcely  any 
institutions  of  learning.  They  support  no  charities.  The 
best  hospitals  of  Germany,  France,  England,  and  America 
are  under  religious  auspices.  I  have  before  me  a  "Hand- 
book of  the  Benevolent  Institutions  and  Charities  of  New 
York  for  1877."  The  Jews,  the  Catholics,  and  all  the 
Protestant  denominations  have  a  noble  record.  But  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  Infidels  are  supporting  one  hospital  or 
benevolent  institution. 

Neither  are  they  '* liberal"  even  toward  each  other. 
There  was  a  furious  rumpus  at  one  of  the  "  Liberal  Club  " 
elections  not  many  weeks  ago.  Do  you  not  rather  think 
the  Investigator  ia   trying  to  "freeze"  out  Thb   Tbuth 


9tm  mmpHiorr-BSKKStT  discubsioit. 


8BEKiBf  Less  tban  a  centnry  ago  Infidels  beheaded  Infidels 
In  Paris.  Hume  and  Rousseau  had  a  most  violent  quar- 
rel The  ''Liberal"  Pike  shot  the  *' Liberal »»  Jones 
because  the  latter  had  been  wry  "liberal"  with  Mrs.  Pike. 

They  are  extremely  illiberal  to  professing  Christians. 
When  rumors  are  afloat  about  a  minister  or  a  church  mem- 
ber, they  always  believe  the  worst,  and  that  before  there  is 
proof  of  guilt.  If  they  can  help  it,  they  will  tolerate  nothing 
that  has  the  least  savor  of  religion  in  it.  Stephen  Girard 
represented  the  character  of  their  "  Liberalism  "  when  he 
made  an  imperative  stipulation  in  his  will  that  no  minister 
should  ever  enter  Girard  College.  Several  of  the  originally 
orthodox  Universities  of  Germany  have  permitted  Rational- 
ism to  be  taught  in  them;  but  there  never  was  an  institution 
under  Rationalistic  or  Infidel  control  that  would  tolerate 
evangelical  instruction  within  its  walls. 

Infidels  are  hypocritieal.  According  to  Infidel  writers,  they 
are  wry  hypocritical.  How  often  do  we  see  and  hear  the 
assertion  that  there  are  ever  so  many  that  are  Infidels  at 
heart,  who  yet  allow  themselves  to  pass  for  orthodox  in  soci- 
ety, in  the  Church,  yea,  and  in  the  pulpit.  As  far  as  this  is 
false,  it  proves  that  those  who  say  so  are  liars.  As  far  as 
it  is  true,  it  proves  that  Infidels  are  craven  and  sneaking 
hypocrites,  Toland  professed  to  be  a  "  Freethinker  "  and  a 
•'good  churchman"  alternately,  as  self-interest  dictated. 
When  Voltaire  was  over  fifty  years  of  age,  he  dedicated  one 
of  his  plays  to  Pope  Benedict  XIV,  wrote  to  him  as  his  "Most 
Blessed  Father,"  and  "Head  of  the  true  religion,"  requesting 
bis  benediction,  and  closing  with  these  words:  "  With  the 
profoundesi  reverence,  I  kiss  your  sacred  feet "  (Voltaire's 
Works,  trans,  by  Smollett  and  Francklin,  London,  1763, 
Vol.  XXV,  p.  16).  It  is  plain  from  this  that  Voltaire  was 
cither  a  Catholic  in  heart,  and  an  Infidel  dissembler,  or  else 
he  was  an  Infidel  in  heart,  and  a  Catholic  dissembler.  But 
lave  it  as  you  will,  he  was  a  hypocrite.  We  have  seea 
already  thaX  Thomas  Paine  ptwCmdM  to  be  a  beUever  in  tho 


TBB  BtTMFllBKT-BSlt NKTT  DISCUSSIOIT. 


t07 


Christian  Religion  during  the  period  of  the  Revolution.  It 
is  on  record  that  David  Hume  advised  a  friend  to  take  false 
yows,  and  preach  doctrines  he  did  not  believe,  in  order  that 
he  might  get  the  emoluments.  For  mysel€,  I  have  always 
been  suspicious  of  the  pretended  respect  of  Materialistic 
editors  for  Spiritualism. 

Infidels  are  superstitioue.  If  anything  is  a  greater  exhi- 
bition of  superstition  than  Spiritualism,  I  would  like  to' know 
'What  it  is.  The  majority  of  the  "clairvoyants,"  and 
"astrologers,"  that  disgrace  our  cities  are  ^'advanced" 
Spiritualists,  or  some  nondescripts  in  that  neighborhood. 
I  am  really  surprised  to  find  Thb  Trutk  Sbekeb,  that 
|)retend3  to  be  so  opposed  to  impostures  of  all  kinds,  adver- 
4^8ing  "astrologers."  Quite  recently  a  gentleman  in  Wash- 
ington was  offering  for  sale  Thomas  Paine's  old  spectacles 
and  shoe-buckles  <Tbuts  Seekeb,  March  8,  1877).  Verilyl 
Bome  Infidels  have  come  right  down  to  venerating  relics  1 
I  have  heard  that  extremes  meet;  and  Id  an  instance — the 
Catholic  and  the  Infidel  meeting  devoutly  at  the  sacre4 
shrine  of  the  Selie,  the  one  kneeling  in  the  presence  of 
Peter's  sandal,  and  the  other  bowing  before  Paine's  epeo- 
taclesl    O,  what  a  spectacle  1 

Infidels  exercise  blind  creduUty.  You  wiU  perhaps  regard 
this  a;^  the  keenest  cut  of  all.  But  nothing  can  be  more 
true.  How  many  there  are  who  believe  everything  they  see 
in  Infidel  papers!  They  do  not  veiify  what  they  read. 
They  simply  sit  down  to  swallovo.  Skeptics  talk  a  great  deal 
about  the  conclusions  of  science.  But  can  they  personally 
loUow  the  astronomer  through  his  computations  f  Can 
ihey  personally  accompany  the  geologist  step  by  step  until 
he  arrives  at  his  inferences  f  Can  they  personally  compre- 
hend and  see  all  the  intermediate  "evidences '*  of  Evolutionf 
No;  not  one  in  ten  thousand  is  able  to  do  this.  They  merely 
accept  by  faith  the  conclusions  of  others.  As  far  as  they 
Aemselws  are  concerned,  it  is  "  going  it  blind." 

Infidels  are  very  much  given  to  copying  one.  another. 


»HB  mmPHBBT-BBllKBTT  MSCtTBSKMf. 


VBM  HUMPHBET-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


209 


III 


How  many  have  got  into  trouble  because  they  quoted  ToJ- 
taire,  imagining  that  be  was  a  reliable  historian  1  Perhaps 
you  will  allow  me  to  say  that  your  own  "World's  Sages, 
Infidels^  and  Thinkers"  is  far  from  being  trustworthy. 
Many  of  its  claims,  assertions,  and  implications  are  demons 
arably  incorrect.  Now  I  do  not  impute  this  td  dishonesty 
in  my  friend  Mr.  Bennett  I  do  not  believe  that  he  would 
intentionally  play  the  Ananias  with  the  gold  of  Truth.  I 
ascribe  it  entirely  to  his  unfortunate  combination  of  credo- 
Mty  and  incredulity.  He  believes  too  much  evil  and  too 
little  good  about  Christians,  and  he  believes  too  much  good 
and  too  little  evU  about  Infldels.  The  action  of  incredulity 
always  begets  an  equally  great  reaction  of  credulity. 

Infidels  are  unprogrmive.  The  Paine  sect  of  unbelievers 
is  producinir  ▼ery  little  that  Is  new.  Nearly  a  century  haa 
passed,  and  yet  nothing  better  to  offer  a  ** thinker"  than 
the  "Age  of  Reason"!  Too  bad  i  Voltaire's  "  Philo- 
sophical  Dictionary  "  is  still  kept  in  circulation,  fraught 
with  the  ignorance  and  blunders  of  more  than  a  hundred 
years  ago  1 .  The  Infidels  of  to-day  are  Uving  on  old  hash^ 
cold  hash^  and  rehaah. 

All  this  goes  to  show  that  '-laberals"  have  every  fault 
which  they  impute  to  Christians.  They  call  themselves 
"  Beformers^"  but  they  are  not  reformed.  They  imagine 
they  are  " advanced " and  "progressive,"  when  in  reality 
they  are  only  going  ahead  like  the  crab— backwards.  And 
they  are  more  hopeless  than  anybody  because  they  fancy 
Ihey  are  superior  to  everybody. 

My  article  is  already  long,  and  I  must  break  off  right 
here.  I  trust  that  the  reader  has  received  some  assistance 
to  see  that  Infidelity  cannot  be  true,  1.  Because  even 
Phrenology  condemns  it  2.  Because  the  average  senti- 
ment of  mankind  is  against  it  a  Because  it  is  hopelessly 
self-contradictoiy.  4.  Because  it  is  a  disorganizing,  fatal 
principle.  6.  Because  it  is  comparatively  insincere.  <L 
Becaui     t  is  ooniiitent  with  immoraU^.    And  7.  Becauso 


Infidels,  though  they  style  themselves  "  Heformers,"  have 
all  the  imperfections  of  those  whom  they  condemn  and  per. 
secute. 

I  beg  pardon,  if  occasionally  I  have  been  a  little  ironical 
or  sarcastic.  I  want  to  close  with  a  good  feeling  all  around. 
I  cherish  the  best  wishes  for  my  doubting  friends.  I  would 
that,  as  searchers  for  Truth,  they  would  take  for  their  ex- 
ample some  model  man,  like  Sir  Isaac  Newton.  In  him 
met  all  the  elements  of  complete  manhood.  He  was  as  pure 
as  the  snow-flake,  and  as  strong  as  the  granite.  He  was  as 
simple  as  a  child,  and  as  profound  as  Nature.  He  combined 
in  his  soul  the  critical  and  the  devout,  the  manly  and  the 
godly.  To  be  one  such  a  man  is  better  than  to  be  a  thousand 
kings.  Yours  with  respect,         G.  H.  Humfhbet. 


MR.    BBITHBTT. 

Rkt.  G.  H.  Humphrey,  Dear  Si/r:  I  fancy  I  see  you 
walking  over  your  domain  endeavoring  to  repair  the  dam- 
ages of  the  storm  of  argument  which  so  recently  swept 
over  it.  I  see  you  anxious  to  replace  and  readjust  the  posts, 
etc.,  which  you  had  so  carefully  planted,  and  that  the  task  ' 
is  too  hard  for  you.  But  I  perceive,  too,  that  you  have  the 
faculty,  where  you  cannot  remedy  the  effects  of  the  storm, 
of  quietly  letting  it  pass  and  of  saying  nothing  about  it 
Where  you  were  damaged  the  most  and  your  posts  are 
completely  gone,  you  say  not  a  word. 

In  your  subsequent  efforts  to  recover  from  the  damage 
you  become  excited  and  wild.  You  remind  me  of  a  dis- 
comfited champion  of  the  prize  ring  who  has  received  such 
stunning  blows  that  his  head  rings  and  swims,  his  face 
bleeding,  his  eyes  swollen  and  closed,  his  strength  ex- 
hausted, and  he  strikes  wildly  and  frantically  in  aU  di- 
notions  without  object   or  aim*    What  have  the  adver- 


.1 


no 


ncM  HtmiPfliiY-BfiiiiiTT  Dtscnssiov. 


YHB  HTJlfPHBBT-BENNBTT  DIHCUSSIOll. 


su 


tisements  In  the  coltnnns  of  Ths  Tbuth  Seeker  and  other 
journalB,  the  treatment  of  epermatorrhcDa,  the  sale  of  medical 
works,  astrology,  Paine  Hall,  Science  Hall,  The  World's 
Sages,  George  Francis  Train,  Mrs.  Woodhull,  John  A  Lant, 
and  n^any  other  things  you  strike  at  and  clutch  at,  to  do 
with  the  subject  under  discussion  f  Where  your  posts  were 
eotirely  swept  away,  I  see  you  fain  would  set  up  new  ones, 
but  they  will  hardly  serve  you.  I  fancy  you  appear  to 
better  advantage  on  '*  the  back  seat  of  the  car  of  Progress,*' 
throwin^^  out  your  hand-bills,  claiming  great  scientific 
achievements  for  Christianity  than  in  the  role  of  a  post- 
tetter  and  defender,  or  ae  a  bully  in  the  P.  R 

I  can  hardly  notice  all  the  points  you  touch  upon,  but  yon 
inake  so  many  glaring  misstatements  and  misrepresentations 
that  I  cannot  let  all  pass  unnoticed.  While  I  have  you 
under  my  charge  I  feel  a  certain  responsibility  for  your 
conduct,  and  cannot  let  you  make  misstatements  without 
applying  a  gentle  corrective.  I  fear  your  cause  is  not  a  good 
one  if  misrepresentation  is  necessary  to  help  you  out.  It 
may  be  set  down  as  an  axiom  that  Truth  never  needt  fal^ 
hood  to  euatain  it,  Tou  doubtless  think  with  Paul,  your 
guide  and  authority,  that  falsehood  and  guile  may  serve  a 
good  purpose  in  certain  emergencies  (Bom  .ill,  7,  '*For  if 
the  truth  of  €k>d  hath  more  abounded  through  my  lie  unto 
his  glory,  why  yet  am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner,"  and  2 
Oor.  zii,  16,  '*But  be  it  so,  I  did  not  burden  you;  never- 
theless, being  crafty,  I  caught  you  with  guile")*  but  the 
clearest  judges  do  not  accept  falsehood  and  guile  as  proper 
factors  in  making  up  the  most  excellent  moral  character  or 
as  the  best  agencies  with  which  to  effect  good  works.  Let 
me  point  out  some  of  your  departures  trom  truth. 

1.  You  say  I  failed  to  strengthen  my  claim  to  Peter 
Cooper.  I  think  not.  I  proved  that  he  admitted  that  he  was 
a  heretic.  He  is  not  orthodox,  and  will  so  admit  to  you  if 
you  caU  upon  him.  What  if  Paine's  works  are  not  in  his 
library  uid  the  Bible  is?    He  did  not  select  the  hooka  for 


the  library.  He  does  not  bellcTe  all  contained  in  the  books 
in  the  library,  nor  discard  all  in  books  not  in  it.  The 
Life  of  Paine  and  Voltaire's  Writings  are  there,  and  if 
your  argument  proves  anything,  Peter  Cpoper  mast  believe 
them.  On  a  certain  occasion,  in  a  short  speech  at  a  public 
meeting  in  his  hall,  Mr.  Cooper  admitted  that  he  did  not 
regard  the  Bible  stories  of  the  creation,  the  fall  of  man,  and 
the  flood,  as  being  literally  true,  but  as  mere  legends.  Be- 
sides, let  me  inform  you  that  Paine's  Work's  are  in.  hia 
library— now,  if  not  n  hen  you  looked  for  them. 

2.  You  say  all  I  have  said  about  Cornell  University  1b  dis- 
proved by  the  quotation  you  make  from  President  White. 
Not  so.  It  does  not  disprove  a  word  of  it.  The  assertions 
I  made  are  true  and  must  stand.  Of  course,  he  wishes  to 
have  religious  young  men  attend  his  school,  and  he 
caters  somewhat  to  them,  but  neither  he  nor  acting-Presi- 
dent Russell  are  believers  in  the  central  dogmas  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

8.  The  silence  of  Herodotus  about  Jerusalem  and  the 
Temple  is  a  proof  that  they  were  not  in  existence,  or  were 
not  worthy  of  remark.  He  visited  Syria  twice;  and  as  Pal- 
estine is  included  in  Syria,  had  there  been  such  a  city,  such 
a  nation,  or  such  a  temple,  he  assuredly  would  have  known 
it  and  described  them.  He  may  also  have  visited  Rome, 
and  his  allusions  to  that  city  may  have  been  in  the  portions 
of  his  works  that  were  lost.  What  he  wrote  about  Syria  is 
not  lost,  and  he  says  not  a  word  about  that  part  of  it  where 
the  nomadic  Jews  resided. 

4.  You  misrepresent  Prof.  Rawson.  You  say  he  stands 
alone  among  travelers  in  holding  that  there  are  no  indica- 
tions of  ancient  civilization  in  Palestine.  He  has  not 
claimed  that  there  are  no  proofs  there  of  an  ancient  civiliza 
tion.  He  readily  admits  it,  but  claims  they  are  not  proofs 
of  Hebrew  civilization.  There  are  ruins  there  of  Egyptian, 
Grecian,  Roman,  and  Arabic  origin,  but  nothing  distinct- 
ively Jewish.    Neither  does  he  stand  alone  in  this  position. 


1^13 


THl  HlTMPHBBT-BUrifSTT  DISCITSSIOir. 


TUB  HUMPHRBY-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


213 


m 


m 


Dr.  Robinson  prftcticallytdmitfl  the  same,  and  is  confirmed, 
as  I  showed  in  my  last,  bj  Captains  Wilson  and  Warren. 

I  see  you  dislike  to  acknowledge  the  fact  that  the  Jews 
were  semi-baibaxians,  but  you  may  as  well  do  so  with  the 
best  grace  you  can.  Their  being  degraded  slavea  in  Egypt 
would  not  disprove  it.  Slaves  are  not  apt  to  be  far  ad- 
vanced in  education  and  civilization.  Your  attempts  to 
prove  that  they  were  not  barbarians  by  referring  to  the 
silly  story  of  Jacob  and  his  ringed  and  streaked  sticks,  and 
about  Queen  Sheba  coming  *<  from  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  earth/*  seem  to  me  weak  and  sophistical.  Where  are  the 
''uttermost  parts  of  the  earth**  located?  That  the  Jews  were 
barbarians  it  is  only  necessary  to  state  that  they  offered  aa 
sacrifices  both  animals  and  human  beings.  For  an  instance 
ol  the  latter,  I  will  refer  you  to  the  case  of  Jephtha  and  hia 
daughter,  and  to  Leviticus  xxvii,  28  and  29.  *'  Notwith- 
standing  no  devoted  thing  that  a  man  shall  devote  unto  the 
Lord  of  all  that  he  hath,  both  of  man  and  beast.*'  etc. 
"None  devoted  of  man  shall  be  redeemed;  but  shall  surely 
be  put  to  death.**  That  they  also  ate  human  flesh  I  will 
refer  you  to  the  following  passages:  Deut.  zxviii,  63-<S7; 
Lam.  iv,  10;  Ezekiel  zzxiz,  18,  and  Bar.  ii,  8. 

5.  It  is  hardly  fair  In  you,  after  I  had  given  you  Prof. 
Bawson's  name  and  address,  and  after  you  had  called  upon 
him  several  times,  to  still  insinuate  that  I  withhold  author!, 
ties.  I  will  in  all  cases  give  them  where  it  is  necessary. 
The  statement  that  Peter  Cooper  calls  himself  a  "heretic" 
ia  from  Mr.  Egbert  Hasard,  a  cultivated  and  weU-known 
gentleman. 

6.  Tour  repetition  that  the  ezcesses  connected  with  the 
French  Revolution  and  the  Keign  of  Terror  were  a  part 
of  the  programme  of  Freethought  is  most  untrue.  If  you 
assert  it  a  thousand  times,  it  is  still  untrue.  They  were 
wholly  political  in  character  and  origin.  The  Reign  of 
Terror  bogaii  with  the  reign  of  Robespierre,  and  continued 
whilf  he  was  i«  potwer.    pe  was  the  leading  spirit  of  the 


timet;  and  for  proof  that  he  was  a  Christian,  a  religious 
fanatic,  I  will  refer  you  to  Chamber's  Encyclopedia,  and 
to  Thiers*  French  Revolution,  vol.  ii,  p.  376.  and  vol.  iii. 
pp.  11,  12. 

7.  You  flay:  "Infidelity  is  always  flattering  human 
nature."  Untrue.  It  simply  aims  to  tell  the  truth  about  it 
and  to  show  how  much  it  is  capable  of  doing.  Christianity 
is  always  demeaning  human  nature,  insisting  that  it  is 
totally  depraved  and  incapable  of  itself  of  doing  anything 
good  or  praiseworthy.  The  doctrine  of  total  depravity  leaves 
no  room  for  good  in  the  human  heart.  Infidelity  in  tills 
respect  teaches  truth,  and  Christianity  falsehood. 

8.  You  say:  "  Infidelity  is  not  self-consistent."  It  is  per- 
fectly so.  However  difilcult  it  may  be  to  decide  the  nature 
of  a  Supreme  Power,  or  whether  we  have  an  individual  ez- 
istence  after  this  life,  the  rejection  by  all  classes  of  Liberals 
of  the  absurd  dogmas  upon  which  the  Christian  religion  is 
founded  is  perfectly  consistent  and  perfectly  correct. 

9.  You  insist  that  Infidelity  is  inferior  to  the  Scriptures 
because  it  is  disintegrating  and  disorganizing.  Incorrect. 
While  Infidelity  does  not  form  creeds  and  dogmas,  it  accepts 
the  moral  law  of  doing  the  greatest  good  to  our  fellow-be- 
ings, compatible  with  individual  rights.  Infidelity  is  supe- 
rior to  the  Scriptures  because  it  rejects  the  supernatural,  it 
is  less  contradictory,  less  obscene,  less  bloody,  less  murder- 
ous, less  cruel.  Do  you  pretend  to  say  there  is  more  diversity 
of  opinion  among  Infidels  than  there  is  among  Christians 
with  their  hundreds  of  modifications  and  differences  over 
which  they  have  contended  and  fought  for  nearly  twenty 
centuries? 

10.  You  say  "the  history  and  teachings  of  Infidelity 
prove  that  its  tendency  is  to  universal  disintegration  and 
decomposition— that  is,  universal  death."  This  assertion  is 
entirely  devoid  of  truth.  Pagan  and  anti-Christlan  nations 
have  been  as  much  devoted  to  the  organization  of  families 
and  societies  aa  Cliristendom  hm  ever  been.    Pagan  sages 


.Jk^^ 


814 


Tm  BtnfPHBEy-BBNNBTT  Discussnm. 


THE  HtrMPnBET-BENNKTT  DISCUSSION. 


215 


i;'i 


m 


•ad  philosophers  ha^e  neTer  been  excelled  in  their  inculca- 
tions respecting  the  sanctity  of  home,  duties  to  parents, 
children,  and  all  members  of  society.  I  refer  you  to  the 
Institutes  of  Menu,  the  teachings  of  Zoroaster,  Buddha,  Con« 
fncius,  Mencius,  Bias,  Socrates,  Spicurus,  Plato,  and  num- 
erous others  of  later  date. 

11.  Tou  declare  that  ^'Advanced  thinkers  are  endeaTor> 
ing  to  sever  the  golden  bonds  of  the  family.**  Untrue. 
The  leading  thinkers  and  reformers  are  seeking  to  make 
family  love  and  family  happiness  more  perfect  and  more 
productive  of  good.  As  a  complete  refutation  of  your 
assertion,  let  me  refer  you  to  the  lecture  of  Col.  Robert  O. 
IngersoU,  our  leading  exponent  of  Liberalism,  upon  the 
*' Liberty  of  Man,  Woman  and  Child,'*  which  appeared  In 
the  last  issue  of  Thb  Tbuth  Sbbkbb,  and  which  contains 
eloquent  appeals  for  the  sanctity  of  the  home  and  mar- 
riage relation.  The  marriage  ceremony  itself  is  an  In- 
fidel institution.  It  originated  with  the  pagans,  and  was 
adopted  from  them  by  the  Christians.  It  was  your  orffai^ 
Mng  Jesus  who  taught:  "If  any  man  come  to  me,  and 
liate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and 
brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot 
be  my  disciple"  (Luke  xiv.  26).  When  making  such  sweep- 
ing charges  as  you  do,  you  should  adduce  some  proofs. 
Who  are  they  who  are  **  endeavoring  to  sever  the  golden 
bonds  "f    Either  name  them  or  cease  to  make  the  charge. 

12.  Tou  next  say,  **If  Freethinkers  are  law-abiding  cit- 
izens, it  is  because  they  are  inconsistent  **  It  is  a  marvel  to 
me  how  a  man  who  makes  any  pretension  to  sanity  and 
truthfulness  can  make  such  a  reckless  assertion.  Free- 
thinkers are  law-abiding  citizens  for  the  same  reason  that 
all  good  people  are  who  recognize  the  necessity  of  law  and 
order  in  the  regulation  of  society. 

18.  Again,  you  say:  **Were  the  Infidel  doctrine  to  be 
applied  simnltaneously  to  everything,  the  whole  world 
would  be  hi  a  state  of  hopelees  anarchy  in  twenty-four 


honn."  I  do  not  know  how  a  man  could  insert  more  untnith- 
fulness  and  absurdity  in  a  single  sentence.  There  is  not  a 
word  of  truth  in  it.  Infidelity  is  simply  a  denial  of  the  super- 
natural origin  of  the  Bible  and  Christianity.  Nine  tenths 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  are  disbelievers  in  this  di- 
vinity, and  they  still  do  not  exist  in  a  state  of  anarchy,  but 
are  absolutely  more  orderly  and  moral  than  Christians. 
Verily,  my  friend,  you  have  taken  the  text  for  your  last 
letter  from  Rom.  iii.  7  previously  quoted;  and,  of  course,  to  a 
man  who  can  accept  such  immoral  teachings  as  the  word  of 
God,  truth  must  always  be  subservient  to  the  interests  of 
his  creed  or  of  himself.  The  evil  effects  of  a  thorough  be* 
lief  in  the  Bible  are  making  themselves  manifest. 

14.  Tou  have  the  hardihood  to  assert  that  "Pure  Infidel- 
ity has  produced  no  orders,  brotherhoods  or  societies;  it  has 
created  no  institutions  of  charity  or  learning.'*  Wholly 
untrue.  Nations  not  accepting  Christianity  have  produced 
far  more  orders,  societies,  brotherhoods,  associations,  and 
the  like  than  Christianity  has  done.  There  are  at  the  presen  t 
time  in  the  world  hundreds,  yea,  thousands  of  societies  and 
associations  under  Infidel  auspices.  They  have  established 
numerous  colleges  and  institutions  of  learning  and  charity. 
Do  not  be  so  blind  or  narrow-minded  as  to  think  that 
Christianity  has  done  all  that  has  been  effected  in  this  line. 

16.  Tou  say;  ''The  Bible  inculcates  and  Christians  ex- 
ercise more  sincerity  than  Infidels  practice.'*  A  most 
ridiculous  absurdity,  and  not  susceptible  of  proof.  No 
class  of  people  In  the  world  exercise  mere  sincerity  than 
Infidels;  and  as  proof  I  assert  the  fact  that  to  maintain 
their  honest  convictions  they  bear  the  opprobrium,  abuse, 
and  condemnation  of  the  votaries  of  theological  mysticism 
who  belong  to  the  popular  respectable  (?)  class.  It  takes  a 
sincere,  honest,  and  truly  brave  man  to  be  a  good  Infidel. 

16.  Tou  reiterate  the  threadbare  untruth  that  "  a  great 
many  Infidels  have  betrayed  their  life-long  hypocrisy  by 
their  death-bed  misgivings  and  confessions. "    It  is  perhAi)s 


210 


THE  HtrMPHRET-BENNBTT  DI8CTJ88I0H. 


THE  HTJMPHREY-BEITNETT  DISCUSSION. 


tn 


harsb  to  tell  a  man  lie  utters  a  falsehood,  but  in  this  case  It 
Is  mild  language  to  do  so.    The  charge  is  as  false  as  the 
doctrine  of  hell !    No  distinguished  Infidel  has  confessed 
his  error  on  his  death-bed,  nor  recanted  his  views,  and  I 
defy  you  to  prove  where  one  has.    But  there  are  thousands 
of  cases  where  Christians  have  died  in  great  doubt,  and  in 
utter  fear  and  terror.    "  Martin  Luther  despaired  of  the  sal- 
vation of  his  soul.    Shortly  before  his  death  his  concubine 
pointed  to  the  brilliancy  of  the  stars  of  the  firmament: 
•See,  Martin,  how  beautiful   that   heaven  is.*    'It  does 
not  shine  in  our  behalf,*  replied  the  master,  moodily.    *Ia 
it  because  we  have  broken  our  vows?*  resumed  Kate,  in 
dismay.    'May  be.*  said  Luther.    'If  so,  let  us  go  back.' 
•Too  late,  the  hearse  is  stuck  in  the  mire;*  and  he  would 
hear  no  more.    At  Eishenben,  on  the  day  previous  to  that 
on  which  he  was  stricken  with  apoplexy,  he  remarked  to 
his  friends:  'I  have  almost  lost  sight  of  the  Christ,  tossed 
as  I  am  by  these  waves  of  despair  which  overwhelm  me, 
and  after  a  while  he  continued.  *  I  who  have  imparted  sal- 
vation to  so  many  cannot  save  myself.'     .     .     *He  died 
forlorn  of  God,  blaspheming  to  the  very  end.*    Schussel- 
berg,  a  Protestant,  writes  thus  of  the  death  of  Calvin: 
•Calvin  died  of  scarlet  fever,  devoured  by  vermin,  and 
eaten  up  by  an  ulcerous  abcess,  the  stench  whereof  drove 
away  every  person*  iTheU,  Calvin,  t.  ii.  p.  72).     *In  great 
misery  he  gave  up  the  ghost,  despairing  of  salvation,  eyok- 
ing  devils  from  the  abyss,  and  uttering  oaths  most  horrible, 
and  blasphemies  most  frightful.*    John  Hszen,  a  disciple 
of  Calvin,  and  an  eye-witness  of  his  death,  writes  thus: 
•  Calvin  died  in  despah*.    He  died  a  death  hideous  and 
revolting,  such  as  God  threatened  the  impious  and  repro- 
bate with.'    And  he  adds:  'I  can  vouch  for  the  truth  of 
every  word,  because  I  have  been  an  eye-witness*  {De  vita 
Calvin).     Spalatln,  Justus,  Jonas,  Isinder,  and  a  host  of 
other  friends  of  Luther,  died  either  in  despair  or  crazy. 
Henry  YIIL  died  bewailing  that  he  had  lost  heaven,  and 


his  worthy  daughter  Elizabeth  breathed  her  last  in  deep 
desolation,  stretched  on  the  floor— not  daring  to  lie  in  bed, 
because  at  the  first  attack  of  her  illness  she  imagined  she 
saw  her  body  all  torn  to  pieces  and  palpitating  in  a  caul- 
dron of  fire  "  (Plain  Talk  about  Protestantism  of  To-day, 
byM.  Segur). 

How  did  your  own  dear  Savior  leave  this  world  f    In 
utter  fear  and  terror,  crying  out  in  mental  agony,  **Eloi, 
Moi,  lama  mbacthanif—My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me  I"    How  different  the  death  of  these  great 
lights  of  your  Church  from  the  courage  and  calmness  dis- 
played by  Socrates,  Bruno,  Spinoza,  Mirabeau,  Hume,  Vol- 
taire, Volney,  Hobbs,  Bolingbroke,  Rousseau,  Gibbon,  Jef- 
erson,  Ethan  Allen,  Paine,  Kneeland,  Theodore  Parker,  John 
Stuart  Mill,  Michael  C.  Kerr,  and  hosts  of  other  unbelievers 
who  died  peacefully  and  placidly,  without  the  slightest 
fear.    "In  all  my  experience,"  says  the  Rev.  Theodore 
Clapp,  for  a  long  time  a  prominent  clergyman  of  New 
Orleans,  and  who  doubfeless  preached  nearly  ten  times  as 
long  as  you  have,   "I  never  saw  an  unbeliever  die  in 
fear.    I  have  seen  them  expire,  of  course,  without  any 
hopes  or  expectations,  but  never  in  agitation  from  dread  or 
misgivings  as  to  what  might  befall  them  hereafter.    It  is 
probable  that  I  have  seen  a  greater  number  of  those  called 
irreligious  persons  breathe  their  last  than  any  other  clergy- 
man in  the  United  States.    .    .    When  I  first  entered  the 
clerical  profession  I  was  struck  with  the  utter  inefficiency 
of  most  forms  of  Christianity  to  afford  consolation  in  the 
dying  hour."    Add  to  this  the  testimony  of  a  great  light 
of  your  own  Church,  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  who  for  half 
a  century  preached  the  gospel  of  Jesus  to  anxious  souls.  As 
he  neared  the  close  of  a  long,  busy  life  he  said:  "I  see 
not  one  ray  to  disclose  to  me  the  reason  why  sin  came 
into  the  world,  why  the  earth  is  strewn  with  the  dying 
and  the  dead,  and  why  man  must  suffer  to  all  eternity. 
I  have  never  seen  a  particle  of  light  thrown  on  these  sub- 


!' 


fits 


VBB  BUlffHBIT-BEinilTT  DISOUSaON. 


TBB  HUKFBBSY-BSKNVrT  KSCUSSIOir. 


S19 


5' I 


]ect8  that  has  giyen  a  moment's  ease  to  my  tortured  mind; 
nor  have  I  an  explanation  to  offer  or  a  thought  to  suggesi 
that  would  be  a  relief  to  you.    I  trust  other  men,  as  they 
profess  to  do,  understand  this  better  than  I  do,  and  that 
they  have  not  the  anguish  of  spirit  I  have;  but  I  confess, 
when  I  look  on  a  world  of  sinners  and  sufferers,  upon 
death-beds  and  graveyards,  upon  the  world  of  woe,  filled 
with  hearts  to  suffer  forever;  when  I  see  my  friends,  my 
parents,  my  family,  my  people,  my  fellow  citizens;  when 
I  look  upon  a  whole  race,  all  involved  in  this  sin  and  dan- 
ger ;  when  I  see  the  great  mass  of  them  wholly  unconcerned; 
and  when  I  feel  that  God  only  can  save  them,  and  yet  h« 
does  not  do  it,  I  am  struck  dumb.   It  is  all  dark,  dark,  dark  (# 
m$»aul,andl  caniwt  dUffvim  W*  (Practical  Sermons,  p.  124). 
Thus  we  see,  from  Christian  authorities,  that  instead  of 
Infidels  dying  in  fear  and  terror,  it  is  leading  Christiana 
who  have  done  this;  it  is  they  who  so  frequently  recoil  ai 
the  approach  of  the  King  of  Terrors. 

It  is  an  unfair  insinuation  in  you  to  attempt  to  make  il 
appear  as  cowardice  in  Paine  that  he  deferred  the  publicar 
tion  of  the  Age  of  Reason  tiO  the  latter  part  of  his  life. 
There  Is  not  the  slightest  warrant  for  your  doing  this.  To 
charge  Thomas  Paine  with  moral  cowardice  is  like  charging 
the  sun  with  being  the  source  of  darkness. 

You  quote  Dr.  Johnson  as  calling  Bolingbroke  a  coward, 
but  Johnson  was  himself  far  more  a  coward.  He  was 
noted  for  his  timidity  and  superstition,  and  he  entertained 
a  perfect  horror  of  death. 

17.  You  say,  "The  ineincerity  of  Infidels  is  shown  by 
the  scantiness  of  their  efforts  to  propagate  their  ideas." 
Not  so.  While  they  do  not  believe  the  promulgation  of 
their  views  is  necessary  to  save  souls  from  the  seething  lake 
of  fire  and  brimstone,  they  have  evinced  commendable  zeal 
in  bringing  their  views  to  the  knowledge  of  their  fellow 
beings.  Many  have  spent  their  li\es  in  disseminating  the 
tmthaof  Libeialiam.  and  with  lUght  expectation  of  pecu- 


niary remuneration.  I  claim  to  be  one  of  this  class.  I 
have  devoted  my  time  and  strength  to  this  labor  of  love. 
I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  Christian  in  the  country  who 
gives  as  many  hours*  service  in  a  year  to  spreading  his 
views  as  I  do  mine,  and  who  does  it  with  less  expectation 
of  making  money  by  it. 

18.  Again,  you  say,  "Freethought  lecturers  have  to  do 
a  prodigious  amount  of  advertising,  drumming  up,  and 
self -puffing."  This  is  a  contradiction  of  your  previous 
assertion.  It  is  a  specimen  of  your  fairness  and  consistency 
to  taunt  Infidels  with  making  no  efforts  to  promulgate  their 
views  and  in  the  same  breath  to  asperse  them  for  making 
"  prodigious  "  efforts  in  that  direction.  Our  lecturers  do 
not  do  a  "  prodigious  amount  of  advertising,'*  but  a  limited 
amount  Our  two  most  popular  lecturers,  IngersoU  and 
Underwood,  are  under  very  litUe  necessity  of  advertising. 
IngersoU,  without  a  single  effort  of  the  kind,  could  have 
fifty  audiences  for  every  night  in  the  year,  could  he  serve 
them.  Underwood  has  more  calls  for  his  services  than 
he  is  able  to  supply.  He  is  compelled  to  refuse  many  ap- 
plications. It  is  not  necessary  for  him  to  advertise.  New 
lecturers  have,  of  course,  to  make  themselves  known.  Your 
fling  at  the  cost  of  Infidelity  is  in  keeping  with  your  other 
criticisms.  Christianity  has  cost  the  world  a  thousand 
times  more  than  Infidelity  ever  has  or  ever  wilL 

W.  You  say,  "  Infidel  journals  are  not  well  supported." 
They  are  supported  well  enough  to  continue  to  exist.  The 
Investigator  has  put  in  an  appearance  every  week  for 
nearly  half  a  century.  Newer  papers,  considering  the  time 
and  capital  employed,  have  done  well.  Have  Church 
papers  all  done  well  ?  Par  greater  numbers  of  them  have 
been  forced  to  the  wall  for  want  of  adequate  support 
than  Liberal  papers.  How  is  it  with  the  Christian  daily, 
Th4  WitTU88,  which  has  been  running  a  long  time  at  a  heavy 
lots  I  The  compositors  and  other  employees  recently  struck 
for  the  18,000  that  is  owing  them  for  their  labor,  and  the 


S90 


in  HVMFHBXT-mBnraTT  miouBnoN. 


paper  wts  compelled  to  be  Issued  with  a  single  page  of  new 
matter.  My  compositors  have  never  been  under  the  neces- 
sity of  striking.  They  have  received  their  pay  every  Satur- 
day night. 

As  to  efforts  being  made  to  "freeze  The  Tbuth  Seeker 
out,"  I  know  nothing  of  it.  Just  now  the  temperature  is 
such  HibX  freezing  seems  to  be  the  most  unlikely  misfortune. 
It  began  with  the  financial  panic  in  the  autumn  of  1873.  It 
had  neither  capital  nor  experience  to  back  it;  but  in  spite 
of  the  unprecedented  hard  times  it  has  grown  from  a 
monthly  to  a  semi-monthly,  then  to  a  weekly,  and  its  num- 
ber of  patrons  and  readers  has  steadily  increased. 

20.  You  say  Sciencb  Hall  "is  a  dingy  little  back  room." 
Not  true;  it  is  of  fair  size;  80  by  85  feet,  and  has  seats  for 
about  five  hundred  persons.  It  is  not  gorgeously  fitted  up 
with  richly  cushioned  seats  and  a  $10,000  organ,  but  it  is 
not  dingy.  It  is  no  farther  back  from  the  street  than  nine 
tenths  of  the  churches  in  this  city,  and  is  more  quiet  for 
being  removed  from  the  front.  Do  you  think  your  churches 
would  be  more  pleasurable  if  the  pulpits  were  close  to  the 
noisy  streets  T  Scientific  apparatus,  diagrams,  and  costly 
Illustrations  are  used  there  when  needed.  I  have  seen  them 
all  used  there  repeatedly,  but  not  once  in  any  of  your 
churches.  Whatever  aspersions  you  may  please  to  make 
about  want  of  grandeur  and  style  in  Sciencb  Hall,  I  can 
assure  you  it  was  not  stolen,  and  it  is  not  in  debt.  It  is  not 
likely  soon  to  be  sold  out  at  Sheriff's  sale,  aa  was  the  altar, 
the  pulpit,  the  organ,  and  all  the  holy  paraphernalia  at  the 
"Church  of  the  Holy  Savior  "  recently,  to  pay  a  debt  the 
church  could  not  meet.  I  will  call  your  attention  to  a 
recent  article  in  the  Trihuns,  taken  from  the  county  records, 
showing  on  fifty-four  churches  of  this  city,  of  various 
denominations,  mortgages  amounting  to  $2,867,886,  and 
will  ask  you  whether  it  is  not  better  for  Sciencb  Hall 
to  rest  under  your  imputation  of  being  little  and  *'  dingy" 
than  to  be  grand  and  fashionable  by  following  the  Christian 


THB  HtrilFHBBT-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


221 


example  of  going  in  debt  to  accomplish  it  ?  If  Science 
Hall  people  had  borrowed  $40,000,  which  is  less  than  the 
average  owing  on  the  fif ty-four  churches  alluded  to,  they 
doubtless  could  have  fixed  the  place  up  splendidly,  but  they 
preferred  to  not  be  embarrassed  with  such  a  debt  for  mere 
grandeur. 

In  enumerating  the  places  in  the  city  where  Liberal  meet- 
ings  are  held,  it  would  not  have  been  unfair  to  have  named 
the  magnificent  Masonic  Temple  where  Mr.  Frothing- 
ham  discourses  to  large  audiences,  Standard  Hall,  where 
Professor  Adler  holds  forth  to  the  Ethical  Society, 
Bepublican  Hall  and  Harvard  Kooitj,  where  the  Spiritual- 
ists meet  regularly,  and  the  hall  in  which  the  Cosmopolitan 
Conference  meets  every  Sunday,  at  1214  Broadway. 

21.  You  set  it  down  as  an  axiom,  that  **lmmoraUiy  is  con- 
iistent  with  Infiddity."     It  is  most   untrue.    Infidels  are 
admirers   of  virtue,  morality,    and   good   deeds.     They 
esteem   them  for  the  results  they  produce,  and  not  be- 
cause they  think  the  practice  of  them  will  save  anybody 
from  a  literal  hell.     Knowing  they  cannot  be  counted 
righteous  by  the  good  deeds  of  another,  they  realize  the 
necessity  of  performing  the  good  deeds  themselves.    They 
are  lovers  of  virtue  for  virtue's  sake,  and  not  for  Jesus'  sake. 
22.  Again  you  say,  "An  Infidel  cannot  injure  his  standing, 
as  an  Infidel,  by  anything  he  may  do.    No  injustice  or  vile- 
ness  on  his  part  could  bring  mankind  to  feel  that  he  had 
violated  his  principles."  I  cannot  conceive  how  a  man  could 
go  to  work  to  state  a  more  palpable  untruth.    Infidels  are 
just  as  susceptible  to  the  effects  of  bad  conduct  as  any  class 
of  men  in  the  world.     Injustice  and  vileness  sink  them  in 
the  estimation  of  their  fellow-beings  as  much  as  any  class 
of  men.    It  is  the  Christian  who  can  consistently  commit 
unmanly  deeds  and  be  guilty  of  immoral  conduct,  for  he 
does  not  expect  to  be  saved  by  his  own  merits,  nor  to  be 
damned  for  his  misdeeds;  it  is  faith  hi  the  blood  of  Jesus 
that  takes  him  to  heaven.    It  is  the  dying  pangs  of  his 


229  THE  HUMPHBEl-BWfWBTT  DttCUBMOH. 

Savior  that  waft  his  soul  to  Pwadise.  No  matter  how 
much  vile  conduct  he  may  be  guUty  of.  if  he  only  has 
••  faith,"  he  is  aU  safe.  Let  him  contract  ever  so  many 
debts,  "  Jesus  pays  it  all." 

23.  You  step  out  of  your  way  to  throw  filth  and  abuse 
upon  the  memory  of  some  of  the  best  men  the  world  hai 
ever  produced.    While  there  may  be  some  truth  in  your 
charges,  they  are  distorted,  and  you  traduce  where  praise 
is  more  deserved.    I  can  hardly  take  the  room  to  follow 
you  in  all  cases,  and  show  how  unjust  your  charges  are 
Girard  did  not  make  his  wife  Insane  by  quarreling  with 
her     You  have  no  grounds  for  insinuating  that  Paine  lived 
improperly  with  Mrs.  Bonneville.    You  have  thrown  out 
this  slander  before,  but  offered  no  adequate  proof  to  sustain 
it     I  should  be  equally  Justified  in  claiming  that  Jesus 
committed  adultery  with  the  Mary  whom  he  loved  so  well. 
Goethe  was  not  an   immoral    man.    Rousseau  was   an 
upright,  well-disposed  man.    Voltaire  was  not  a  perjurer. 
Chesterfield  did  not  seek  to  make  his  son  a  whoremaster. 
John  Stuart  MiU  sustained  a  character  too  pure  for  you  to 
besmirch.    Shelley  was  not  guilty  of  wrong  in  leaving  his 
wife-  nor  was  he  dissolute.   What  are  the  facts  in  his  case! 
When  a  mere  boy  he  was  expelled  from  college  and  driven 
from  home  because  he  presumed  to  disbelieve  what  the 
ortbodox  taught  about  God  and  devils.    Two  years  before 
he  became  of  age  he  was  thrown  in  the  company  of  Harnet 
Westbrook,  and  they,  as  boys  and  girls  so  often  do,  fell  in 
love  with  each  other.    She  proposed  to  elope  with  him,  but 
lie  declined  to  do  this,  and  they  were  legally  married.    But 
unfortunately,  as  is  too  often  the  case,  as  time  sped  away, 
they  found  thiy  were  uncongenial  to  each  other.    This 
state  of  things  was  intensified  by  the  conduct  of  a  maiden 
sister  of  the  wife,  who,  because  of  Shelley's  unbelief,  used 
every  effort  to  turn  her  sister's  mind  against  him.    They 
finally  mutually  agreed  to  separate,  and  the  same  was  done 
wiih  the  approbatiQO  of  the  wife's  father.    Shelley  did  not 


ram  huiifhbet-benkbtt  discussion.  zis 

forsake  her,  but  contributed  to  her  support  and  felt  friendly 
towards  her.    The  worid  has  produced  few  more  brilliant, 
amiable  and  pure  men  than  was  Percy  Bysshe  Shelley;  and 
though  he  died  before  he  reached  his  thirtieth  year,  h^  has 
left  such  a  monument  of  the  beautiful  creations  of  his  gen- 
ius and  sterilng  truths  as  will  carry  his  name  in  honor  and 
glory  down  to  the  latest  generation.    Byron,  it  is  true, 
was  wild  and  amorous;  but  he,  too,  died  young.    Had  he 
lived  to  late  manhood,  it  may  well  be  supposed  he  would 
have  "sowed  his  wild  oats,"  and   become  a  staid  and 
exemplary  member  of  society. 

Your  flings  at  Geo.  Francis  Train,  John  A.  Lant,  Dr.  Poote, 
Charles  Bradlaugh,  and  the  fanatic  and  insane  Pike  are  per- 
haps worthy  of  you.    Let  me  assure  you  that  neither  of 
these  were  really  guilty  of  obscenity.    Dr.  Poote  and  Brad- 
laugh  published  scientific  information  needed  by  the  peo- 
ple.   Train  published  without  comment  portions  of  the' 
"Holy  Scriptures."   Lant  did  even  less.    These  were  all 
victims  of  Christian  bigotry  and  oppression.    Let  me  also 
assure  you  that  Mrs.  WoodhuU  has  never  been  claimed 
by  the  Infidels  of  this  country.    Sbe  is  one  of  your  kind, 
and  is  a  strong  believer  in  the  Bible.    She  takes  it  with 
her  upon  the  lecture  platform,  and  selects  texts  from  it  the 
same  as  you  and  her  other  brethren  do.    She  prevented  a 
witness  from  being  allowed  to  testify  in  court  because  he  did 
not  believe  in  the  "Gawd "of  the  Bible.    It  is  asserted  that 
she  has  joined  the  Church,  so  I  beg  of  you  not  to  traduce  a 
sister  m  the  Lord  as  being  the  "  quintessence  of  nsstiness. "     * 

You  have,  of  course,  studiously  hunted  up  all  the  dark 
spots  you  could  find  on  the  escutcheon  of  prominent  Infi- 
dels,  and  you  have  presented  them  to  their  worst  advantage 
But  really  what  does  it  all  prove?  It  proves  that  unbeliev- 
ers  are  human  beings,  and  have  sometimes  made  mistakes. 
What  class  of  men  is  there  in  the  worid,  that  running  over 
their  records  for  hundreds  of  years,  as  many  charges  could 
^^ot  be  brought  against  them  f 


234  TH»  HOMPHEM-BKNHBTT  DISCOTBIOIf. 

Tou  tove  succeeded  Inglytagrt  moBt  but »  short  cata- 
logue of  the  errors  of  Infidels,  men  who  claimed  no  power 
from  on  high  to  aid  them  la  withstanding  the  impulses  of 
human  nature.    To  counterbalance  the  arraignment  let  me 
before  I  clo»,  give  you  a  single  chapter  of  the  cnmes  of  the 
old  patriarchs  and  worthies  of  the  Jewish  Church  and  some 
oi  the  spiritual  leaders  and  bright  lights  of  the  Ohn^an 
Church-men  who  are  thought  to  have  the  spirit  of  God 
with  them  to  guide  them  aright,  and  the  --^iJcaUon  and 
holine«i  of  Jesus  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  ""V^^y  *°  ''^ 
them  to  lead  pure  Utc.  but  to  be  leaders  and  pUots  to  those 
haying  less  assistance  from  the  heavenly  throne.    I  wiU 
resume  this  part  of  my  Buhject  further  on. 

8t  You  say  "  Ingersoll-iaying  nothing  else  to^""''" 
gone  to  the  California  heathen  to  tell  them  about  h» 
Ghosu."  eta    How  do  you  know  no  well  that  he  has  no^- 
tog  el»  to  do»    Let  me  inform  you  that  he  U  one  oftt. 
"west  «Kl  most  popular  lawyers  in  IlUnois.  and  for  year. 
tL  had.l«ge  and  constantly  increasing  practice.    As* 
S^ly^  your  aspersions  that  Infidels  have  no  mlssiona.7 
sSeJi  let  mVsay.  that  had  they  «.ch  or^-^^^^J^ 
would  not  cost  thirty-nine  out  of  every  forty  doU^ J* 
ceived  by  them  to  pay  the  officer.,  etc.,  a.  w..  the  c«« 
^Z,  the  pious  St.  John's  GuBd  in  this  city,  nor  ninety-n me 
ZTTJ^  hundred  doUar.  received.  -  »•  th*  ««•  '"J 
Zll^Z.  foreign  misdon.    -Hi.  poor  ^ea^^n  who 
rtand  in  «.  much  danger  of  being  plunged  into  heU  do  not 
SJ  «t  the  benefit  of  one  dollar  In  a  hundred  of  tto 
^nly'fhat  is  persistently  begged  from  S^day^'T '  ^^^ 
dren  servant  girl.,  and  silly  children  of  older  growth.    Th* 
S^ds  th,^  obtained  are  u.«l  t"  P'^  ^'-^^T  "f  * 
Zs  of  the  organizations,  and  to  line  the  pockets  of  the 

T^^ou-TttarSuLity  condemns  immo^li^. 
.hil.  infidelity  isc^-wlthit^d^en^^esj^ 

Wby,  my  pious  Inena,  ao  you  mmmm  •»«*•• 


THB  HtnCPHBXT-BBNNETT  DlSCUSSIOir. 


S2$ 


tioni  ?  Ohristianity  excels  no  religion  in  tke  world  in  con- 
demning immorality.  It  has  sanctioned »  and  its  believers 
have  practiced,  for  many  centuries  the  g  ossest  of  crimes. 
There  is  more  crime  in  Christian  countries  than  in  any 
others  on  the  globe.  If  Christian  doctrines  are  true,  moral- 
ity is  wholly  unnecessary.  Morality  cannot  save  the  world 
but  the  blood  of  Christ  can,  and  it  can  save  an  immoral 
world— an  immoral  people— just  as  well  as  a  moral  one. 
Faith  is  the  only  ingredient  necessary.  Infidelity  does  not 
encourage  immorality.  It  exalts  morality  and  teaches  that 
it  is  the  source  of  happiness.  It  does  not  call  it  **  filthy 
rags/'  etc.,  as  Christians  have  done  thousands  upon  thou- 
sands of  times. 

26.  Tou  again  repeat  that  **  Infidelity  invites  and  is  con- 
sistent with  every  species  of  ini<|uity.*'  In  the  mildest 
language  I  can  command  I  must  characterize  this  charge  as 
uncalled  for,  uncharitable,  unfair,  and  positively  false  I  I 
demand  of  you  to  prove  your  charge  or  withdraw  it.  It 
avails  you  little  to  quote  Franklin  in  a  remark  about ''  re- 
ligion." He  does  not  sustain  your  slanderous  position  at 
all.  Of  course  he  had  a  sincere  veneration  for  religion,  but 
none  for  Christianity.  He  did  not  laud  the  Christian  dog- 
mas, nor  harp  about  the  blood  of  Jesus.  Until  you  can 
show  when  he  praised  the  Christian  faith,  and  acknowl- 
edged it  as  his,  it  will  be  quite  as  well  for  you  not  to  claim 
him  as  a  supporter  of  your  system. 

27.  You  say  ^'IngersoU  is  'matchless'  at  cursing  and 
swearing.'*  Mistaken  again.  Tou  wrong  the  gentleman. 
He  may  occasionally  use  some  expletives,  but  there  are 
thousands  of  clergymen  in  the  country  who  surpass  him  a 
long  way  in  cursing  and  swearing.  I  have  been  in  his  com- 
pany for  hours,  and  at  different  times,  but  do  not  remem- 
ber  to  have  heard  him  swear  or  curse.  Tou  should  be  a 
little  more  careful  in  making  charges. 

28.  Again  you  say,  **  Infidels  are  illiberal  They  have 
endowed  scarcely  any  iofititutions  of  learning,"  etc    Tou 


TMM  ■mopBBvr-BSNNxrr  piflouwioir. 


thus  wrong  them  agiiii.  With  the  beqaesto  of  Stephea 
Oinrd,  Smithson,  Peter  Cooper,  Qerrit  Smith,  and  James 
Lick  iu  memory,  how  can  you  make  such  a  statement  f 
When  LiberalB  give  in  charity  it  is  not  as  a  sect,  an  order, 
or  as  a  class,  but  as  citisens  of  the  world.  I  know  not  why 
they  should  not  be  just  as  generous  to  give  according  to 
their  means  as  belieyers  in  myths  and  superstitions.  It  w  as 
the  practice  of  Christianity  for  so  many  centuries  to  kill  o£E 
the  Infidels  that  the  latter  had  few  opportunities  to  accum- 
«lat«  wealth  to  give  away.  It  kept  them  pretty  busy  to 
save  their  lives. 

29.  You  say  "  There  was  a  furious  rumpus  at  one  of  the 
•Liberal  Club'  elections."  How  easy  it  was  for  you  to 
exaggerate  and  misrepresent.  There  was  some  dilTerence 
of  opinion  as  to  which  members  were  suitable  or  unsuitable 
lor  certain  offices,  but  there  was  nothing  '*  furious  "  or  vio- 
lent about  it.  Have  not  Liberals  the  same  right  to  disagree 
in  matters  of  opinion  of  this  kind  that  Christians  exercise 
BO  largely  T  There  is  nothing  in  the  country  more  common 
than  church  quarrels  and  fights.  Hundreds  of  cases  could 
be  cited  were  it  necessary.  The  proportion  of  church  quar- 
rels to  Liberal  quarrels  is  probably  a  million  to  one. 

80.  Again,  you  say  "  Infidels  are  hypocritical."  Indeed  t 
It  took  you  to  make  that  discovery  I  It  is  possible  some  of 
the  weaker  ones,  in  order  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  Mrs. 
arundy  and  Mrs.  McFlimsy,  may  not  be  outspoken  in  ac- 
knowledging how  little  they  believe,  but  it  is  only  the  weak 
ones  who  act  in  this  way.  The  bulk  of  Infidels  show  a 
great  amount  of  honesty  and  independence  in  acknowledg- 
ing their  views.  Tou  must  have  been  put  to  your  trumpa 
to  rake  up  charges  against  them. 

»1.  "Infidels  are  superstitious."  This  is  too  weak  to 
demand  attention.  If  there  are  any  people  in  the  world 
free  from  superstition  they  are  Infidels.  They  have  no 
faith  in  myths  and  supernaturalism.  They  believe  in  the 
Univeffie-4n  matter  and  the  powers  end  for6e8  that  pertain 


:nE  nUMPHRET-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


227 


to  it,  and  in  nothing  else.    Superstition  forms  no  part  of 
their  composition.    As  to  astrologers,  it  is,  perliaps,  hardly 
worth  your  whUe  to  slur  them.    There  have  been,  and  still 
are,  men  with  more  intelligence  than  you  and  I  both  possess 
who  believe  that  the  planeto  exercise  a  decided  influence  on 
the  people  and  affairs  of  this  world.    Thales,  Pythagoras, 
Hippocrates,  Aristotle,  Claudius  Ptolemy,  Roger  Bacon, 
Lord  Francis  Bacon,  Kepler,  Tycho  Brahe,  and  Sir  Isaac 
Newton,  were  firm  believers  in  astrology.    Your  rap  at  the 
advertisements  that  appear  in  the  columns  of  The  Truth 
Seeker  was  hardly  necessary.    The  publishers  of  papers 
are  never  expected  to  endorse  every  advertisement  that  is 
brought  to  them.    Christian  papers  advertise  patent  medi- 
cines, gift  concerns,  insurance  companies,  patent  rights, 
etc.,  and  nobody  thinks  they  are  responsible  either  for  the 
worth  or  worthlessness  of  the  articles  advertised. 

82.  "Infidels  exercise  blind  credulity."  Then  you  add, 
'*  You  will  perhaps  regard  this  as  the  keenest  cut  of  alL" 
O,  no!  I  donH  think  it  keen  at  all.  If  instead  of  " keen" 
you  had  said  "  silly,"  I  would  not  have  disputed  you.  Of 
all  the  people  in  the  world  Freethinkers  are  the  least  given 
to  blmd  credulity.  It  takes  solid  proofs  and  facts  to  con- 
vince them. 

88.  ** Infidels  are  very  much  given  to  copying."  Not 
any  more  than  other  people.  That  they  sometimes  use  argu- 
ments that  others  of  their  numbers  have  used  is  not  impos- 
sible. I  believe  there  is  no  law  against  it.  A  good  argu- 
ment will  bear  repeating.  But  do  not  Christians  pattern 
after  one  another  ?  Have  they  not  been  preaching  the  same 
fables,  and  telling  the  same  tales  about  God's  anger,  the 
fountain  of  Jesus'  blood,  the  lake  of  burning  sulphur,  and 
all  the  rest  of  that  similar  nonsense,  for  many  centuries  f 

84.  You  have  the  kindness  or  unkind ness  to  allude  in 
some  rather  uncomplimentary  remarks  to  my  work,  •*  The 
World's  Sages,"  etc.  You  pronounce  it  "untrustworthy" 
and  ••demonstrably  incorrect."  Youmi^  be  right    It  may 


be  wholly  untmetwor&iy,  !mt  allow  me  to  say  in  the  most 
gentle  manner  that  if  I  thought  there  were  half  as  many 
errors  of  statement  in  it  as  there  are  errors  of  doctrine  in 
your  little  volume  of  180  pages  on  your  favorite  theme  of 
"  Hell  and  Damnation  "—in  which  you  labor  so  earnestly 
to  prove  an  angry  God,  a  personal  Devil,  a  literal  Hell  of 
fire  and  brimstone  in  which  hundreds  ot  millions  of  help- 
less beings  are  to  fry  forever— I  would  get  them  all  together 
and  burn  them  to  ashes.  The  facts  contained  in  my  vol- 
ume were  taken  from  biographies  and  cyclopedias  of  the 
highest  reliability,  and  I  am  very  sure  no  fact  was  distorted 
or  misrepresented.  The  information  regarding  moderns 
treated  in  the  work  was  sometimes  obtained  from  the  par- 
ties themselves,  and  sometimes  from  near  friends.  I  assure 
you  truth  and  accuracy  were  the  ends  kept  in  view. 

35.  **  Infidels  are  unprogressive.    •    .    Nearly  a  century 
has  passed,  and  yet  nothing  better  to  offer  a  thinker  than 
Pdne's  Age  of  Reason.    .    .    The  Infidels  of  to-day  are 
living  on  old  hash,  cold  hash,  and  re-hash."    You  certainly 
have  the  faculty  of  compressing  untruth  into  a  small  space 
to  a  greater  extent  than  any  other  person  I  can  think  of. 
There  may  be  truth  in  your  remark  that  there  is  nothing 
better  than  the  Age  of  Reason.    In  its  way  it  is  hard  to 
beat,  and  has  never  been  refuted  nor  answered  by  your 
ablest  clergymen.    It  will  live  long  after  you  and  I  are  for- 
gotten.   But  you  are  greatly  mistaken  in  thinking  that 
•'  thinkers  '*  have  had  nothing  given  them  since  the  Age  of 
Reason.    With  your  knowledge  of  the  works  of  Humboldt, 
Darwin,  Spencer,  Mill,  Tyadall,  Huxley,  WaUace,  Amber- 
ley,  Holyoake,  Bradlaugh,  Draper,  and  many  others,  it  is 
most  singular  you  should  mf^e  such  a  statement.    If  we 
can  always  have  such  old  hash  or  cold  hash  as  the  writings 
referred  to,  we  think  we  shall  thrive  nicely.    We  greatly 
prefer  it  to  the  brimstone  broth  which  you  ladle  out 

SO.  Tour  attempt  to  prove  by  phrenology  that  Infidelity 
is  false  appeart  to  me  futile,  and  as  evidence  of  it  I  would 


TflB  HmfPSBKr-BBNUBTT  mfiCUSRON. 


My  that  phrenology  is  strictly  a  natural  science,  and  has  no 
connection  with  the  supernatural.  Nearly  all  Freethinkers 
and  scientists  accept  phrenology  as  being  mainly  a  true  sci- 
ence, which  teaches  that  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind, 
and  that  character  corresponds  to  structure. 

37.  The  average  sentiment  of  mankind  is  not  against 
Freethought  any  farther  than  it  is  cramped  and  dwarfed  by 
ecclesiasticism  and  superstition.  Had  it  been,  the  Protes- 
tant religion  would  never  have  been  known,  and  instead  of 
you  and  I  living  to  publish  our  opinions  in  an  Infidel  paper 
we  would  long  since  have  been  burned  on  a  pile  of  pine 
wood  carefully  prepared  by  your  Catholic  mother  whom 
you  haVe  so  unceremoniously  shaken.  Martin  Luther  was 
ft  Freethinker  for  his  time,  and  Infidels  now  are  only  finish- 
ing the  work  which  he  commenced — the  demolition  of  the 
Christian  religion.  As  fast  as  the  human  mind  becomes 
emancipated  from  mythological  and  theological  dogmas 
and  errors,  it  is  free  to  embrace  the  great  truths  of  the  Uni- 
verse, which  practically  constitute  them  Freethinkers  or 
Infidels.  The  average  sentiment  of  mankind  is  certainly 
opposed  to  Christianity.  If  the  majority  is  to  decide  what 
is  truth,  your  system  could  not  get  more  than  one  vote  in 
ten,  taking  the  whole  world  into  account. 

38.  In  your  closing  paragraph  you  make  a  very  compli- 
mentary allusion  to  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  and  hold  him  up  as  a 
specimen  of  perfected  manhood.  Newton  was  a  great  man, 
and  when  he  kept  within  the  range  of  positive  science  he 
was  mainly  correct.  But  when  he  entered  upon  the  realm 
of  superstition  he  was  perfectly  at  sea,  and  steered  wildly. 
Blot,  in  his  Life  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  after  giving  a  full 
account  of  his  work  (Observations  upon  the  Prophecies  ot 
Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John),  remarks:  *'It  will 
doubtless  be  asked,  how  a  mind  of  the  character  and  force 
of  Newton^s,  so  habituated  to  the  severity  of  mathematical 
considerations,  so  accustomed  to  the  observation  or  real 
phenomena,  so  methodical  and  so  cautious  even  at  his  'sold- 


TMM  HUMPHSBT-BBNiniTT  DUOHaiXOV. 


Mt  moments  in  physical  sptcQlation,  and  oonsequeutlj  bo 
well  aware  of  the  conditions  by  which  alone  truth  is  to  be 
discovered,  could  put  together  such  a  number  of  conjec- 
tures without  noticing  the  extreme  improbability  that  is 
iuTolved  in  all  of  them.'*  **  The  only  answer  that  can  be 
given  to  this  question  is«  that  this  work  was  written  at  a 
time  when  Newton  had  almost  ceased  to  think  of  science— 
that  is,  after  the  fatal  aberration  of  his  intellect  in  1698." 
This  is  the  answer,  in  brief,  which  Biot  gives,  and  which  ie 
accepted  not  only  by  scientists,  but  by  the  majority  of  well 
informed  theologians. 

Thus  I  have  followed  you  through  more  than  a  third  of 
a  hundred  errors  and  misrepresentations  which  you  made. 
Several  others  I  must  leave  unnoticed  this  time.  In  taking 
my  leave  of  them,  allow  me  to  say  I  hope  in  the  future  you 
will  be  more  careful  and  guarded  in  your  statements.  It  is 
unpleasant  to  have  to  take  so  much  time  and  space  to  cor- 
rect your  mistakes.  My  replies  would  not  need  to  occupy 
half  the  space  they  do  were  it  not  for  correcting  the  egreg- 
ious errors  you  appear  so  capable  of  makmg.  A  public 
teacher  like  yourself  ought  to  despise  misrepresentation 
and  untruth. 

You  have  a  way  of  plUying  fast  and  loose  with  the  Catholic 
Church.  When  it  suits  your  convenience  to  claim  what  it 
has  done  as  an  honor  to  the  Christian  cause  you  readily 
count  it  in  as  of  the  true  elect,  but  when  its  damnable  enor- 
mities and  abominations  are  in  view,  you  find  it  equally  as 
convenient  to  disown  it.  I  think  in  my  former  reply  I  said 
something  about  the  ingratitude  of  axsLild's  turning  against 
its  mother  and  denouncing  her  as  an  old  prostitute.  Such 
conduct  cannot  be  justified.  You  must  remember  that  all 
that  Protestantism  has  she  obtained  from  the  Mother 
Church,  and  all  that  makes  her  any  better  than  her  crimi- 
nal mother  is  the  modicam  of  Infidelity  and  independence 
she  dared  to  espouse  when  she  set  up  business  for  herself. 

Let  me  now  folflll  my  promise  tnd  give  you  an  install- 


^ 


;SBB  SUMPH&BT-BBNHBTT  DIBCUSSIOir. 


231 


tnent  of  the  immoralities  and  crimes  of  distinguished  patrl 
archs  and  saints  of  olden  and  modern  times,  to  serve  as  an 
offset  to  the  short  chapter  of  similar  short-comiogs  which 
you  arrayed  against  prominent  Infidels.  As  you  seem  to  be 
fond  of  this  kind  of  literature^  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  grat- 
ify your  tastes  in  that  direction. 

To  begin  with  old  Father  Noah,  we  have  Bible  authority 
that  he  was  a  drunkard,  and  tiiat  lie  indecently  exposed  Mm- 
4self  while  lying  in  -a  drunken  debauch.  That  he  cursed  bis 
grandson  and  his  descendants  to  perpetual  slavory  because 
Ham  laughed  at  old  man  Noah  while  thus  lying  drunk. 
This  is  held  to  be  the  cause  of  African  slavery,  which  your 
own  Church,  the  Presbyterian,  has  declared  to  be  a  divine 
institution,  and  regarded  itself  as  an  agent  to  sustain  it. 

Lot  was  also  guilty  of  drunkenness  and  of  the  horrible 
crime  of  incest. 

Abraham  was  not  only  a  liar  «nd  an  adulterer,  but  he 
turned  tlie  woman  he  had  used  as  a  wife,  together  with  Ids 
own  cliild,  out  in  the  wilderness  to  perish  with  Iranger. 

Isaac  was  a  liar  and  ioolish  dissembler. 

Jacob  was  a  deceitful  trickster,  a  liar,  a  swindler,  aa 
4idulterer,  a  polygamist  and  a  fraud. 

Beuben,  son  of  Jacob,  was  guilty  of  cohabiting  with  his 
f ather*s  concubine. 

Judah,  another  son,  was  guiltj  of  whoring  on  the  public 
liighway. 

Moses  was  a  murderer,  a  bigamist,  a  thief,  or  the  planner 
of  wholesale  theft,  he  was  a  tyrant,  a  slaughterer  in  cold 
blood  of  fifty  to  one  hundred  thousand  women  and  chil- 
dren. He  turned  thirty-two  thousand  innocent  girls  over 
to  his  soldiers  for  the  gratification  of  their  brutal  lusts. 

Aaron  was  an  idolater  and  a  manufacturer  of  gods. 

Joshua  was  a  blood-thirsty  slayer  of  the  human  race,  a 
brigand,  a  robber  and  an  appropriator  of  other  people^s 
property. 

£^ideon,  besides  being  a  reveller  in  human  blood,  a  rob- 


SBB  EfntrBBXT-BKHinm  maeumaom. 


ber  uid  despoiler,  wai  a  libertfne— a  regtilar  Brigbam 
Toang.  He  kept  many  wives  and  eoncabines  for  his  own 
iis^  and  had  seventy  sons  of  his  own  begetting,  not  to 
count  the  daughters.  / 

Samson^  another  judge  !a  Israel,  ws9  a  murderer,  a  thief 
sod  a  dallier  with  a  Philistine  prostitute. 

Bayld,  the  sweet  siager  in  Israel,  and  the  man  after 
God's  own  heart,  w;:9  a  robbir,  brigand  and  murderer.  He 
delighted  in  deeds  of  slaughter  and  bloodshed.  He  was 
Tery  sensual,  keeping  many  wives  and  concubines.  He 
tlyly  watched  the  fair  Bathsbeba  while  she  was  taking  a 
bath,  had  her  conveyed  to  his  own  bed,  committed  adultery 
with  her  and  then  meanly  and  murderously  caused  her  hus- 
band to  be  pot  to  death,  and  from  that  adulterous  source  the 
Bavior  of  man  is  claimed  to  have  descended,  but  there  is  a 
serious  break  in  the  lineage.  As  a  proof  that  David  had  the 
venereal  disease  very  bad,  I  will  refer  you  to  Psalms  xxzviii. 

Amnon,  a  son  of  David,  raped  and  ravished  his  own 
sister. 

Absalom,  another  son,  held  adulterous  connection  with 
his  father's  concubines,  and  hi  view  of  all  the  people. 

Solomon,  the  son  of  David  and  Bathsheba,  was  the  most 
lecherous  man  that  ever  lived.  His  seraglio  consisted  of 
seven  hundred  wives  and  three  himdred  concubines.  He 
was  also  a  worshiper  of  idols. 

Skipping  several  hundred  years  of  lecherous  and  murder- 
ous king^  and  rulers  among  the  Jews,  let  us  get  down  into 
the  heart  of  the  Christian  Church  and  see  If  they  are  any 
better  than  unbelievers  and  pagans. 

Peter  was  guilty  of  lying  and  treachery.  He  flew  into  a 
passion  and  cut  off  a  man's  ear  with  a  sword. 

Paul  advocated  lying  and  guilt,  if  l^  them  his  purpose 
could  be  achieved. 

Xusebiua  was  a  faldfler,  forger,  and  iaterpolaler. 

Coostanthie,  the  Qieat  Christian  Propagandist,  murdered 
hit  own  Mm*  his  nephew,  his  wife— in  all,  he  put  to  death 


»ni  HUicPiisBT-BEXiffSfT  vncwKaoiK, 


883 


seven  members  of  his  own  family— besides  the  numerous 
other  murders  of  which  he  was  guilty. 

St  Augustine  was  one  of  the  most  lecherous  and  dissi- 
pated men  ia  Carthage.  A  thousand  times  worse  than  Ben- 
edict Arnold,  he  invited  the  Vandals  under  Genseric  into 
Africa  to  ravage  and  destroy  his  own  country. 

Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  was  a  pious  pillager  and 
a  religious  ruffian  and  has  justly  been  styled  *«a  bold, 
bad  man."  By  his  order  the  Alexandrian  Library  was  de- 
stroyed. 

St.  Cyril  was  an  atrocious  assassin.    The  horrible  murder 
of  the  beautiful  and  talented  Hypatia  was  ordered  by  him. 
Dioscorus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  beat  to  death  the  bishop 
of  Constantinople,  while  attending  a  Christian  council. 

St  Alexander,  another  bishop  of  Constantinople,  poi- 
soned Arius,  a  brother  bishop. 

Macedonius  passed  over  the  bodies  of  three  thousand 
men  and  women  to  obtain  the  bishopric  of  Constantinople. 
St.  Cyprian  was  guilty  of  so  many  black  and  damnable 
crimes  that  it  would  take  a  volume  to  contain  a  recital 
of  them  all.  The  history  of  his  foul  deeds  may  be  found  m 
Mosheim  and  the  Bihlioihtqe  UniveraeUe, 
;  Charlemagne,  styled  ''The  Pious  Augustus,  crowned  of 
God,"  was  a  wholesale  butcher,  who,  in  one  day,  cut  the 
throats  of  4,500  Saxons  because  they  would  not  consent  to 
be  baptized. 

Clovis,  "  The  Eldest  Son  of  the  Church,"  assassinated  his 
relatives  and  all  the  princes  eligible  to  the  throne,  and 
removed  by  treachery  and  murder  all  the  heads  of  the 
Prankish  tribes,  and  soaked  the  soU  of  Gaul  with  the  blood 
of  the  Arian  proprietors. 

Theodosius,  called  the  Great,  massacred  seven  thousand 
defenseless  persons  in  the  circus  of  Thesalonica. 

Clotilda,  wife  of  Clovis,  and  to  whom  he  owed  his  con- 
version, caused,  in  her  old  age,  two  of  her  grandsons  to  be 
stebMl 


XHS  HmfPEBXT-BSraSTf  MBCUMIQH. 


Pope  Joan,  a  proatltiite,  the  head  of  the  Church,  and 
Ticar  of  Jesoa  Christ,  it  is  claimed  gave  birth  to  a  child 
in  the  streets  wliile  at  the  head  of  a  religious  procession. 

Pope  Gregory  the  Oreat  sanctified  the  most  atrocious 
assassinations  ever  committed. 

The  pious  Phocus  assassinated  his  Emperor  Maurice. 

Pope  John  XIL  was  a  drunkard,  a  profligate,  and  a  mur- 
derer. He  converted  the  papal  palace  into  a  brothel.  He 
repeatedly  raped  widows,  wives,  and  virgins  while  kneeling 
at  his  shrine,  invoking  his  holy  idd  in  the  practice  of  re- 
ligious purity  and  piety. 

Pope  Gregory  YIL  lived  in  open  adultery  with  Countess 
Matilda. 

Pope  Innocent  IIL  was  one  of  the  crudest  persecutors 
ever  known.  He  caused  hundreds  of  thousands  of  the 
virtuous  Albigenses  to  be  put  to  horrible  deaths.  He  often 
•used  this  expression:  *'Sword,  whet  thyself  for  vengeance.' 
This  might  have  been  the  sword  which  the  lovely  Jesus 
spoke  of  having  brought  into  the  world  in  place  of  peace. 

Pope  Alexander  YL  was  guilty  of  the  most  brutal  and 
sensual  conduct.  He  seduced  his  own  daughter,  and  con- 
spired with  his  son  to  poison  four  cardinals.  Poisoning 
and  gross  licentiousness  were  his  great  delight.  He  was 
unquestionably  one  of  the  moat  licentioui  villains  that  ever 
lived. 

Pope  John  XSII,  a  pirate  in  early  life,  was  guilty  of 
simony,  rape,  sodomy,  illicit  intercourse  with  his  brother*8 
wife,  and  of  debauching  three  hundred  nuns. 

Pope  Julius  IIL  was  a  licentious  brute.  He  committed 
sodomy  with  boys,  men,  and  even  cardinals. 

In  fact,  many  of  the  popes  and  cardinals  kept  boys  for 
the  express  purpose  of  sodomy,  and  the  cardinals  often 
committed  this  vile  offense  among  themselves.  Monks, 
priests,  and  friars  were  notoriously  guilty  of  this  damnable 
crime. 

SI.  ]>«niini«  was  th»  f«aad«t  •!  th«  '*  Holy  Inquisitiont** 


SSB  BmfPaBBT-BINNKTT  DZSOUBttOK. 


285 


tlie  crudest  and  most  damnable  organization  ever  instituted, 
and  which  Victor  Hugo  claims  caused  the  death  of  5.000,000 
persons. 

Peter  D.  Arbuss  was  Inquisitor-General  of  Arragon,  and 
caused  the  most  cruel  deaths  to  great  numbers  of  heretics. 

Pope  Gregory  IX.  sent  out  bloody,  murdering  persecutors 
against  the  Albigenses.  caused  the  death  of  a  great  number 
of  men.  women  and  children. 

Simon  de  Montfort  was  a  monster  in  human  form.  He 
hung,  gibbeted,  butchered,  slaughtered,  and  put  to  death  in 
every  cruel  manner  that  pleased  his  fancy,  thousands  of 
hapless  human  beings  whom  he  was  pleased  to  regard  as 
heretics;  and  this  was  kept  up  for  years. 

Pope  Alexander  HI  issued  an  edict  against  those  who  did 
not  entertain  the  right  faith,  and  caused  the  death  of  great 
numbers. 

Pope  Innocent  VIII.  directed  his  Nuncio  to  take  up  arms 
against  the  Waldenses  and  other  heretics,  and  caused  great 
slaughter  among  them.  Blood  was  made  to  flow  in 
rivers. 

The  Christian  Catherine  de  Medici,  the  notorious  poi- 
soner,  with  her  mad  son,  Charles  IX.  caused  the  butchery 
of  66.000  people. 

Duke  Alva  caused  the  death  of  80,000  in  the  Netherlands 
because  their  faith  was  not  of  the  grade  he  demanded. 

Torquemada,  the  cruel  monster,  was  at  the  head  of  the 
Inquisition,  and  caused  the  death  of  eight  thousand  people 
in  Bpain  because  they  did  not  agree  with  him  in  their  opin- 
ions. 

Heniy  VHI.  of  England,  ••  Defender  of  the  Faith,"  burnt 
many  men  and  women  at  the  stake.  He  beheaded  two  of 
his  six  wives. 

The  pious  *' Bloody  Mary"  burnt  three  hundred  persons 
for  diverging  a  trifle  from  her  standard  of  the  true  faith. 

John  Calvin,  the  great  founder  of  Presbyterianism,  was  a 
tyrant  and  a  murderer.    He  Mused  the  death  of  tw#  exeel- 


THS  HimraBBT-BINimTT  KSCUaSIOH. 


kill  men,  Michael  Serretns  and  James  Oraet,  for  nut  enter- 
tatning  the  required  belief  about  the  Trinity. 

Manzer,  disciple  of  Luther,  was  a  reckless  agitator.  At 
the  head  of  40,000  men  he  ravaged  the  country,  bringing 
destruction  on  many. 

Clayerhousc  (Sir  John  Graham)  was  a  marauding  perse- 
cutor who  at  the  head  of  a  force  of  fanatics  and  murderers 
spread  desolation  oTer  much  of  England  and  Scotland. 

Oliver  Cromwell  ordered  or  permitted  the  massacre  at 
Wexford,  Ireland,  of  five  thousand  people,  including  three 
hundred  who  had  gathered  around  a  cross  pleading  for 
mercy.  He  also  deluged  the  streets  of  Drogheda  with 
blood,  and  gave  God  the  credit  for  doing  it. 

Cortez  and  Pizarro  proved  themselves  cruel  monsters  in 
Mexico  and  South  America.  They  put  many  to  death  for 
being  heathens. 

Guy  Lusignan,  first  king  of  Jerusalem,  was  a  murderer. 

Louis  XL  was  a  crael  tjrrant,  who  confined  his  dovbting 
subjects  in  iron  cages,  and  put  many  to  death. 

Balhuaser  Gerald,  hi  a  fit  of  religious  zeal,  committed 
murder. 

Bevaillac  assassinated  Henry  IIL  of  France. 

Guy  f^wkes,  in  the  interest  of  the  Romish  Church,  at- 
tempted to  kill  the  king  and  both  houses  of  Parliament. 

Jeffreys,  the  Christian  Judge,  was  the  most  infamous  that 
ever  sat  on  an  English  bench. 

Pandulph,  the  Pope's  legate  to  the  Court  of  England, 
though  under  a  vow  of  celibacy,  was  found  in  bed  with  a 
prostitute. 

Archbishop  Oranmer  imported  in  a  box  a  mistress  from 
Germany,  and  she  came  near  being  suffocated  by  the  box 
being  left  upside  down. 

Cardinal  Woolsey  was  a  lecherous  man  and  died  of 

■%. 

syphiliSk 

Bevs.  Farris  and  Cotton  Mather,  in  Salem,  Mass.,  perse- 
^ted  many  poi^  wretches  to  dtath  upon  the  ground  tha» 


tBB  HUMPHBXT-BSNNBTT  DISCUBSIOir. 


1^87 


they  were  Influenced  by  witches.  Parris  stood  calmly  by 
while  weights  were  piled  upon  an  old  man  of  eighty  years 
until  his  tongue  protruded  from  his  mouth,  when  Parris 
tried  to  poke  it  in  again  with  his  cane.  The  old  man  died 
in  agony. 

Father  Achillie  was  denounced  in  England  by  Cardinal 
Manning  for  the  lowest  licentiousness  and  filth.  The 
father  denied  it  most  positively,  whereupon  Manning  sent 
to  Italy  and  procured  witnesses  who  proved  such  an  amount 
of  lewdness,  licentiousness,  and  vulgarity,  as  were  before 
seldom  proved  against  a  man.  The  pious  man.  ultimately 
confessed  all,  but  justified  himself  by  claiming  that  he  com- 
mitted the  vile  offenses  when  he  belonged  to  the  Roman 
Church,  where  such  crimes  were  the  common  practice  with 
the  clergy. 

Bishop  Armagh,  Protestant,  of  West  Ireland,  was  guilty 
of  long  continued  sodomy  with  his  coachman.  Upon  discov- 
ery both  were  compelled  to  fiee  the  country. 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city, 
was  deposed  for  being  culpably  guilty  of  lecherous  conduct 
with  many  females,  some  of  whom  were  wives  of  clergy- 
men, in  his  library,  and  notoriously  with  his  servant  girls 
in  all  parts  of  his  premises. 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  Pennsylvania,  brother  to  the 
above,  was  convicted  of  similar  conduct,  and  retired  in  dis- 
grace. 

Rev.  L.  M.  P.  Thomi>son,  of  the  Second  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Cincinnati,  regarded  as  the  most  able  clergyman 
in  the  city,  was  guilty  of  whoring  and  promiscuous  inter- 
course with  many  females.  He  was  expelled  from  the  min- 
istry, and  after  confession  he  united  with  the  Synod  at  Buf- 
falo, and  was  allotted  to  a  charge  in  Jamestown,  bat  soon 
fell  into  the  same  carnal  practices,  and  was  again  expelled 
from  the  Church.  He  is  now  traveling  in  Europe  and  act- 
ing as  correspondent  for  a  religious  weekly. 
Bev.  T.  Turner.  D.D..  President  of  the  English  Wesleyan 


138 


TBM  HUlfPHRXT-BENNETT  DOOUaaZON. 


Turn  MUlfPKBET-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


Sd9 


1 
I 


CJonference,  about  1850,  was  convicted  of  the  sedaction  pf 
several  servant  girls.  He  left  England  in  diflgract,  and  nest 
appeared  in  Australia. 

Rev.  Epiiraim  K.  Avery,  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
seduced  a  young  girl  and  then  murdered  her.  During  the 
long,  searching  trial  the  church  swore  him  through  and  did 
all  they  possibly  could  to  screen  him  and  keep  him  from 
the  hands  of  justice. 

Bev.  T.  Marson,  of  the  Ifethodist  Book  Ck>nceni,  1840, 
was  guilty  of  seduction  and  disgraced. 

John  Newland  Mafflt,  Methodist,  a  great  revivalist,  was 
widely  known  in  the  Western  States  thirty  and  forty  years 
ago.    He  talked  and  sung  sweetly  for  Jesus,  and  pictured 
hell  in  ito  most  lurid  colors,  and  gave  the  devil  his  very 
blackest  garb.    His  greatest  love  was  for  the  dear  sisters. 
In  revival  times  it  was  a  common  thing  for  him  to  put  hit 
hand  in  their  bosoms  to  see  if  they  had  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  to  go  home  with  some  kind  sister  and  sUy  all  night. 
He  committed  adultery  with  the  dears  many  scores  of 
times  and  in  various  parts  of  the  country.    The  lovely 
creatures  deemed   it  a  privilege   to  do  for  Bro.  MafBt 
anything  he  wanted.     I  have  received  many  authentic 
statements  of  his  antics  with  the  sisters.     A  near  and 
excellent  friend  of  mine,  Oscar  Roberts,  saw  Mafflt  on 
one  occasion,  in  the  private  bed-room  of  one  of  the  leading 
sisters  of  the  church  at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning.    A 
bright  fire  in  the  vicinity  brought  them  to  the  window,  and 
they  exposed  themselves  before  they  thought.    This  was 
during  a  big  revival,  and  the  next  night  he  plead  for  Jesus 
as  earnestly  at  ever,  and  there  was  a  great  inflowing  of  the 
spirit 

Rev.  E.  W.  Sehon,  a  great  light  of  tlie  Methodist  Church 
in  the  West,  long  a  presiding  elder,  and  afterwards  at  the 
head  of  an^ducational  establishment,  had  adulterous  inter- 
course with  a  prostitute  late  one  evening  in  his  own  church 
In  LooisviUe,  Ey.    He  was  a  veiy  anoroui  man.  and  went 


It  "on  the  sly"  with  many  of  the  good  sisters.  Many 
charges  of  this  kind  were  brought  against  him. 

Rev.  McCraig,  El  Paso,  111.,  was  guilty  of  erim  eon  with  a 
lady  of  the  place  and  had  to  leave. 

A  clergyman  of  Detroit  forsook  his  wife  and  went  away 
with  another  woman.  He  resumed  preaching  in  the  far 
West  and  wrote  back  that  he  **  hoped  to  meet  his  friends  in 
heaven." 

Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  Qeneseo,  BL,  ran  away  with  another 
man's  wife. 

Rev.  E.  P.  W.  Packard  caused  his  wife  to  be  confined  in 
an  insane  asylum  because  she  would  not  believe  that  a  por- 
tion of  the  human  race  were  destined  to  burn  in  hell  for- 
ever. 

A  Catholic  priest  of  Evansville,  Ind.,  was  proved  guilty 
of  gross  improprieties  and  immoralities  with  the  young  girls 
under  his  charge. 

A  clergyman  of  England  not  long  ago  was  convicted  of 
forgery  and  other  criminal  conduct. 

Rev.  Mr.  Torrey,  of  the  Conference  of  Western  New 
York,  was  tried  and  convicted  of  holding  assignations  in 
his  church.  After  prayer-meetings  a  select  few  of  the  sis- 
ters would  remain,  the  lights  would  be  extinguished  and 
several  hours,  and  sometimes  the  whole  night,  would  be 
spent  in  sexual  pleasure.  A  discovery  was,  however,  made 
and  the  interesting  game  closed.  He  was  removed  to  an- 
other field  of  labor. 

Rev.  Henry  Brown,  Methodist,  seduced  a  girl  in  Texas 
under  promise  of  marriage. 

Rev.  A.  Q ,  D.D.,  now  preaching  in  a  prominent 

town  in  Massachusetts,  officiated  for  a  few  weeks  in 
Plymouth  pulpit  in  1875,  for  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  Dur- 
ing his  stay  he  was  known  to  have  adulterous  Intimacy  with 
two  fancy  women  on  Fourth  avenue  in  this  city.  He  some- 
times had  them  both  in  bed  at  the  same  time.  Proofs  of 
this  can  be  produced  if  called  fer. 


A 


f!BB  SUlfPB&XT-BBHirXTT  DliOuillOH. 

A  well  known  D.D.  and  LL.D.,  for  many  years  President 
and  Dean  of  one  of  the  leading  theological  colleges  of  New 
England,  was  in  the  habit  of  committing  sodomy  with  cer- 
tain students  under  his  charge.  He  seduced  for  this  pur- 
pose a  pleasing  young  man»  and  the  abominable  practice 
was  continued  with  him  for  sixteen  years,  and  after  the 
young  man  also  became  a  D.D.  professor  in  the  same  col- 
lege. This  unnatural  intercourse  practically  unsexed  the 
younger  man  and  depraved  his  tastes.  He  married,  but 
from  consequent  deficient  virility  growing  out  of  the  vile 
habit  alluded  to,  his  wife  was  dissatisfied  and  committed 
adultery  with  several  of  the  professors  of  the  college.  This 
horrible  case  can  be  fully  attested  by  a  learned  physician  of 
this  city,  who  gave  the  younger  man  surgical  and  medical 
treatment  for  the  physical  injuries  he  had  sustained  in  that 
monstrous,  criminal  course  of  life. 

Rev.  S C ,  D.D.,  of  this  city,  was  a  well 

known  whorlst  for  more  than  twenty  years. 

There  is  now  preaching  in  Brooklyn  a  distinguished  D.D. 
whom  a  friend  of  mine  cured  of  gonnorhosa.  The  same 
medical  friend  has  treated  numerous  elders,  deacons,  class* 
leaders,  church  stewards  and  church  members  in  almost 
countless  numbers  for  private  diseases.  Among  this  class 
he  has  known  many  mere  moral  wretches  whose  history 
was  too  low  and  filthy  to  relate  in  the  public  press.  Names 
can  be  given  if  insisted  upon. 

Rev.  Mr.  Allen,  of  Cincinnati,  in  1865  and  1866  was  con- 
victed of  intemperance  and  whoring. 

Rev.  J.  S.  Bartlett,  Milford,  Ohio,  was  guilty  of  criminal 
intimacy  with  a  pretty  married  woman  of  that  town,  who 
had  no  children. 

Rev.  Mr.  Linn,  of  Pittsburgh,  was  guilty  of  several  im- 
proprieties with  the  ladies  of  his  congregation. 

Rev.  Maxwell  P.  Gaddis,  an  eloquent  Methodist  preacher 
of  Cincinnati,  a  loud  temperance  lecftirer  and  United  States 
revenue  collector  under  A  Johnson,  was  guilty  of  looseness, 


THB  HUMPBBBT-BBKNXTT  DnCtmnOV. 


Ml 


whoring  and  drunkenness.  His  wife  was  also  a  loose  char- 
acter, and  had  sexual  connection  with  numbers  of  men.  A 
pretty  pair  of  pious  cases,  indeed! 

Rev.  Miriam  D.  Wood,  of  Decatur,  seduced  Miss  Emma 
J.  Chivers.  Result,  a  bouncing  boy  without  a  legal  father. 
Rev.  J.  M.  Mitchell,  of  Savanah,  Ga.,  and  formerly  from 
Maine,  was  guilty  of  improprieties  with  females  of  his  fold. 
When  charged  with  the  offences,  he  stoutly  denied  it,  and 
asserted  his  innocence ;  but  when  proofs  accumulated  and 
stared  him  in  the  face,  he  was  compelled  to  confess  to 
Bishop  Beckwith,  that  he  was  not  only  guilty  of  the  offen- 
ces as  charged,  but  that  he  had  used  the  grossest  falsehood 
in  endeavoring  to  conceal  his  crimes. 

The  embroglio  between  Rev.  Dr.  Langdon  and  Rev.  Mr. 
Goodenough,  and  several  other  Reverends  of  the  Methodist 
Book  Concern  of  this  city,  is  well  remembered,  when 
charges  of  dishonesty,  embezslement,  falsehood,  etc.,  etc., 
were  freely  made  against  each  other. 

Rev.  Mr.  Lindsley,  of  Medina,  N.  Y.,  whipped  a  little 
child  of  his,  three  years  old,  for  two  hours  and  until  it  died. 
The  excuse  alleged  by  the  reverend  "  man  of  God  "  was, 
that  the  child  would  not  obey  its  step- mother  and  say  its 
prayer^.  He  was  imprisoned  at  Albion,  and  came  near 
being  lynched  by  an  infuriated  populace. 

A  Methodist  minister  in  Cheltenham,  Pa.,  was  boarding 
with  the  wife  of  one  of  the  deacons  of  his  church.  The 
.  deacon  had  a  blooming  daughter  of  fifteen  summers,  with 
whom  the  parson  became  so  much  enamored  that  his  pas- 
sions were  greatly  aroused.  The  mother  of  the  young  girl 
was  justly  shocked  on  a  certain  occasion  to  find  the  clerical 
gentleman  in  bed  with  her  daughter.  The  pastor  endeav- 
ored to  explain  the  unfortunate  occurrence  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  parent,  by  claiming  that  he  must  have  got  into 
U^e  c)iild*s  bed  when  asleep,  but  the  story  was  not  credited 
by  the  parents,  and  he  was  given  twenty-four  hours  to  leave 
the  neighborhood. 


VMS  MUMPHBXT-BSNNXTT  DlSOUStlOV. 

Bey.  Dick  Botties,  of  Meridwi,  Haas.,  WM  trrestcd  tot 
•teftUng  ham;  but  aa  he  ia  a  aon  of  Ham,  poaalbly  he  thought 
he  had  a  right  to  it 

Rev.  Charles  A.  Graber,  pastor  of  the  Lutheran  church 
in  Meriden,  Conn.,  was  accused  of  Beecher-like  immorality, 
and  of  improper  connection  with  the  sisters.  Like  Beecher 
he  denied  it«  but  would  not  stand  an  examination,  saying 
he  preferred  to  resign  his  charge. 

Bcv.  Mr.  Wilcox  held  a  revival  of  several  days'  duration, 
several  years  ago  in  Northern  Illinois.  He  was  loud  and 
earnest  in  his  appeals  for  **  dying  sinners  to  come  to  Jesus;" 
but  in  due  process  of  time  it  was  found  that  during  that 
religious  revival  the  Eev.  Mr.  Wilcox  had  become  the  father 
of  four  illegitimate  children. 

Rev.  Mr.  Dowling,  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  prominent  among 
the  Campbellites,  committed  adultery  with  his  servant  girl, 
«nd  was  seen  in  the  act  by  persons  from  a  higher  window 
in  a  neighboring  house. 

Abbe  Joseph  Chabert,  a  prominent  Catholic  ecclesiastie 
of  Montreal,  and  Principal  of  the  Government  School  of 
Art  and  Design,  was  on  Sept  25th,  1876,  arrested  on  a 
charge  of  rape,  committed  on  Josephine  Beauohamp,  a  girl 
©f  fifteen  years,  and  in  his  own  room.  Probably  his  saint- 
ship  had  indulged  too  much  in  ceUbacy,  until  the  flesh  re- 
belled against  the  spirit 

Rev.  John  A.  Hudkins,  of  Mount  Aiiy,  Ohio,  was  a  big- 
amist, or  rather  a  trigamist,  having  three  wives  at  a  time. 
Be  eluded  Justice  by  escaping  to  Canada. 

A  Baptist  clergyman  of  North  Carolina  was  imprisoned 
for  bastardy.  The  fine  assessed  against  him  was  paid  by 
members  of  his  church,  and  when  he  was  released  from 
confinement  the  sistors  of  his  congregation  met  him  at  the 
prison  door  and  received  him  with  open  arma. 

Rev.  W.  H.  Johnson,  of  Rahway.  N.  J.,  wtt  couTlcted 
for  steaUng  chickens,  and  was  sentenced  to  prison  for  the 
dfensiu 


n»  HUMPORBT-BSNNBTT  DISOUSSIOK. 


MS 


Bev.  Luke  Mills,  of  the  Methodist  church,  Norwich,  Ct., 
decamped  with  a  eonsiderable  sum  of  money  which  had 
been  collected  for  building  a  new  church.  He  was  also 
said  to  be  guilty  of  irregularities  with  a  female  member  of 
his  congregation. 

A  well  known  Episcopal  clergyman  of  Covington,  Ey., 
has  several  times  partaken  too  freely  of  intoxicating  liquors, 
so  as  to  plainly  show  the  effect  it  had  upon  him.  On  Christ- 
mas day  of  1874  he  preached  a  sermon  in  St  John's  fash- 
ionable church  in  Cincinnati,  and  he  was  so  fuddled  with 
egg-nogg  and  communion  wine,  his  preaching  was  so  strange 
and  his  language  so  incoherent  that  his  condition  was  made 
known  to  all  present.  His  mumbling  became  so  senseless 
that  the  wardens  made  signals  to  the  congregation,  and  In 
shame  and  disgrace  they  left  the  church  and  the  drunken 
pastor  to  talk  to  empty  itenches. 

Rev.  Mr.  Warren,  of  Busset  Hills,  N.  T.,  resigned  his 
charge  at  the  special  request  of  his  congregation,  because 
he  was  the  husband  of  three  living  and  undlvorced  wives. 
He  asked  to  preach  a  fareweU  sermon,  but  they  would  not 
consent  to  It  It  was  only  leniency  on  their  part  that  pre- 
vented them  from  prosecuting  him  for  bigamy  and  sending 
him  to  State  prison. 

Rev.  Mr.  Deardoff,  of  Yates  City,  HL,  held  a  protracted 
meeting  at  that  place,  some  time  ago,  and  was  one  night  In- 
vited by  one  of  the  sisters  to  go  home  with  her  and  stay 
over  night.  Upon  arriving  there  he  began  Improper  famil- 
iarities, and  she  not  feeling  In  the  humor  for  the  like,  and 
tearing  herself  away  from  his  embrace,  rushed  to  one  of  the 
neighbors  for  safety.  It  Is  needless  to  say  the  protracted 
meeting  came  to  a  sudden  termination,  and  the  reverend 
gent  proceeded  to  another  field  where  the  sisters  were  more 
accomiuodatlng. 

Rev.  Mr.  Curtiss  not  long  since  conducted  a  revival  meet- 
ing at  Piano,  Dl.,  and  lived  on  *'  chicken  fixings"  and  the 
best  the  pious  sisters  knew  how  to  get  up  for  him.    Clerical 


Ml 


V8B  HimPHBXT'-BBIIIfBTT  DnCtTlilOIC 


n^ 


business  called  liim  to  the  Tillage  of  Blackberry,  where  he 
put  up  at  a  hotel  and  staid  over  night.  When  he  retired  ho 
was  either  so  absorbed  in  the  spirit,  or  in  the  flesh,  that  he 
accidentally  got  into  bed  with  a  woman  not  his  wife.  When 
discovered  in  the  interesting  situation  by  some  over-curious 
individuals,  he  claimed  that  the  little  affair  was  entirely  an 
accident.  It  is  singular  how  many  of  these  little  accidents 
do  take  place. 

Kev.  Dr.  Fiske,  upon  a  trial  for  adultery  in  Michigan, 
unlike  many  of  his  brothers  of  the  cloth,  honestly  owned 
up  as  follows :  '*I  frankly  confess  to  the  fearful  sin  which 
I  am  charged  with,  and  I  will  not  be  a  coward  to  lie  or  seek 
palliatiott'of  my  weakness  and  guilt  I  have  returned  my 
letter  of  fellowship  to  the  denomination  I  have  so  grievously 
stricken,  and  have  abandoned  the  profession  I  have  so  de- 
plorably shamed.  I  am  not  a  coward  or  sneak  to  make 
Adam's  plea,  that  a  woman  did  it  It  was  my  own  weak 
and  unguarded  soul  that  in  a  moment  of  frensy  and  passion 
wrought  my  downfall  T'  This  man  was  much  more  honor- 
able and  honest  than  a  majority  of  his  brothers  who  are 
tried  for  similar  offenses,  and  insist  '*  through  thick  and 
thin/'  in  the  face  of  positive  proof,  that  they  are  perfectly 
innocent 

Rev.  L.  D.  Huston,  the  clerical  villain  of  Baltimore,  was 
guilty  of  seducing  and  ruining  several  young,  innocent 
girls,  daughters  of  widows  and  other  members  of  his 
congregation,  who  were  sent  to  him  for  moral  instruction. 
The  fiendish  ingenuity  he  employed  in  accomplishing  his 
vile  purposes  was  enough  to  strike  one  with  horror. 

Rev.  A.  T.  Thompson,  Methodist,  Cincinnati,  O.,  was 
guilty  of  numerous  criminal  intimacies  with  married  and 
unmarried  females  of  his  congregation,  and  also  of  gross 
intemperance.  His  condnct  was  of  the  most  scandalous 
character. 

Bev.  Dr.  Griswold,  of  Maine,  of  South  Carolina,  ind  of 
iith«r  loealities,  was  a  noted  '*  ladies'  man."  His  love  adven* 


Tsa  nmtFBBMI  -  bknnxtt  hiscussiqv.  Stf 

tores  were  numerous  and  spicy.  He  was  also  very  fond  of 
Jovial  and  convivial  company.  He  committed  bigamy,  hav- 
ing two  wives  at  one  time. 

Rev.  E.  F.  Berkley,  of  St.  Louis,  was  guilty  of  criminal 
intimacy  with  the  * '  gentle  ewe-lambs  of  the  fold. "  Among 
them  was  Ella  C.  Perry  of  the  immature  age  of  11  years. 

Rev.  Washington  W.  Welch,  near  Holly,  Mich.,  commit- 
ted  a  rape  on  Mrs.  Louisa  Green,  the  wife  of  a  brother  min- 
ister. 

Rev.  Geo.  Washburn,  of  the  Lewiston  and  Bradford  cir- 
cuit, Alleghany  Co.,  N.  Y.,  was  engaged  in  courting  several 
young  ladies  at  the  same  time,  and  was  under  promise  of 
marriage  to  two  or  more  of  them. 

Rev.  Wm.  Holt,  near  Paris,  BL,  whipped  a  widow  woman 
with  plow-lines. 

Rev.  Thurlow  Tresselman,  in  Annetia,  N.  Y.,  seduced 
several  young  ladies  of  his  flock,  and  when  unmistakable 
indications  became  so  apparent  that  he  was  charged  with 
the  matter  and  about  to  be  tried,  he  left  the  place  very  early 
one  morning  with  the  gay  Mrs.  Hurst,  the  wife  of  a  gentle- 
man who  was  absent  from  home. 

Rev.  B.  G.  Ribble,  of  DeKalb  Co.,  Bl..  seduced  four 
young  girls  of  the  neighborhood,  and  ran  away,  leaving 
liis  wife  and  two  children  unprovided  for. 

Rev.  B.  Phinney,  of  Westboro.  Mass.,  was  guilty  of  licen- 
tiousness with  various  females  connected  with  his  church. 
Rev.  Mr.  Reod,  of  Maiden,  was  in  the  same  category. 
Rev.  I.  B.  Kalloch,  of  Kansas,  while  a  resident  of  Massa- 
chusetts, visited  a  neighboring  village  with  a  woman  not 
his  wife,  and  hiring  a  room  in  a  hotel  for  a  short  time,  com- 
niitted  adultery  with  her  then  and  there,  as  testified  to  by 
an  eye-witness.  Mr.  Kalloch,  after  this  little  affair,  removed 
to  Kansas,  and  for  several  years  wallowed  in  the  mire  of 
politics;  but  not  succeding  just  to  his  mind  in  obtaining 
offices,  he  for  the  second  time  turned  his  attention  to  min- 
isterial duties  and  pleasures.    But  sad  to  say,  the  lovely 


i^^ 


I.    ('. 


■■( 


lii 


I 


VHB  KmCFaRBT-BBNNBTT  DISCTTafllOK. 

■isten  once  mow  proved  too  charming  for  him,  and  ha 
wandered  in  by  and  forbidden  paths.  He  was  hauled  up 
before  the  church  authorities  for  his  peccadilloes,  and 
finally  stepped  down  and  out  for  a  season;  but  he  is  said  to 
be  now  once  more  imparting  to  his  admiring  hearers  the 
will  and  requirements  of  Qod. 

Bev.  Dr.  Pomeroy,  Secretary  of  the  American  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions,  Boston,  was  proved  to  be  a  liberal  patron 
of  houses  of  Ill-fame,  where  he  freely  used  the  money  his 
confiding  flock  had  donated  for  the  conversion  of  foreign 
heathen.  By  his  own  confession,  he  had  paid  more  than 
six  thousand  dollars  to  women  of  notorious  character  in 

that  city. 

Bev.  Tunis  Titus  Kendrick,  of  Brooklyn,  was  proven 
guilty  of  drunkenness  and  other  immoral  conduct.  He 
struggled  for  a  long  time  to  regain  admission  Into  the 
church  from  whieh  he  was  expelled,  but  did  not  succeed* 

Bev.  B.  H.  Williamson,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  (pastor  of  the 
Bt  Stephen's  Episcopal  Church)  waa  guilty  of  visiting 
houses  of  ill-fame,  and  of  other  immoral  conduct. 

Bev.  Mr.  Smith,  of  Illinois,  a  few  years  ago  drowned  hit 
wife  in  a  shallow  stream  by  holding  her  head  under  water. 

Bev.  Father  John  Daly,  Catholic.  Montgomery,  Mo., 
seduced  a  young  girl  nineteen  years  of  age,  named  Liszie 
McDonnell,  whose  mother  had  been  housekeeper  for  the 
priest  for  a  long  time.  After  getting  her  in  a  condition  to 
soon  become  a  mother  he  procured  an  abortion  for  her.  The 
congregation  were  much  excited  in  consequence,  while  a 
portion  of  the  church  authorities  did  all  they  could  to 
smother  the  reports. 

Bev.  Archibald  Hines,  Knoxville,  Tenn.,  was  charged 
with  stealing  fifty  cents  from  a  bowl  in  the  cupboard  of  one 
of  his  parishioners,  and  it  made  a  great  excitement  among 

the  saints. 

Bev.  T.  M.  Dawson,  Brooklyn,  Cal.,left  that  locality  and 
wont  to  Nevada,  leaving  a  number  of  his  brethren,  in  the 


«H»  HUMPHEBT-BBNKBTT  DIBCUflSIOH.  S47 

i3!ffn^rr^  '^"'*"^'  ^^  ^^'""^  ^^  *"^«"'  ^«  having 
Rested  for  them  in  mining  stocks.    He  was  also,  not  lonf 

W^ivorced  from  his  wife  on  the  ground  of  des;rtion,  ^ 
e«^e, Tl!  ^'^^"^«P-«d  ^0'  ^'S-ny  at  Glov. 
wi!!!Iwr  ^^«''^^°'  8ame  place,  was  afterwards  charged 

jatchel  in  his  room,    fle  was  arrested  and  he  left  his  ^atc^ 
in  payment  for  his  board  biU. 

h^\^/'  ^r^^'  *  ^*P'*'*  ^^^^'  *"  Shelbyville,  Ky., 
had  a  faU  from  decency.    He  eloped  with  one  of  the  istfi^ 

1  Ir^'""'"''  ''^  ^"  ''^"^^'  ^"^^'^  ^^  pair  in 

T  ^'''  ^*  ^  Davidson,  recent  State  lecturer  for  the  Grand 

£Sor  dr    f  '''"''""  ^'  Pennsylvania,  was  arresTeTat 

Erie  for  drunkenness  and  disorderly  conduct  and  had  a  fine 

to  pay.    He  is  said  to  have  organized  more  lodges  than  anv 

other  person  in  the  State.  ^ 

Bev  J  M.  Porter,  Bethlehem,  N.  J.,  was  deposed  from 

ounrr'^"'.'^^''""^  fellowship  by  an  ecclesiasUcS 

TZ^T''^''''''''''''  connection  With  the  sister. 

Elder  Sands,  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Hoosick  N  Y 
formerly  an  insurance  agent  in  this  city,  was  charged  with 
naughty  »  conduct  with  a  ewclamb  of  his  flock.    He  pa  d 
requent  visits  to  her,  and  one  day  her  brother  surprised 

ing  committee  was  appointed  to  enquire  into  the  case.    The 

f  1 17"  '^!'''^^  "'''°'  ""'^  ^"^  "^^  communication  to  make 
on  the  subject.  The  elder  confessed  to  having  his  hands 
under  the  young  lady's  clothes  but  further  than  that  deposed 
not.    The  affair,  however,  was  smoothed  over  and  hushed 

failhfS       ^^  """  '*"^  ^''*^'  *^*  ^'"^^  ^^  *^^«  ^  ^« 

Rer.  G.  W.  Porter,  Methodiit.  recently  had  a  trial  ai 


S48 


THE  HUMPHBET-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  BUMPHBBT-BSNNSIT  OISCUSSIOlT. 


249 


rnt 


II    \  t 


Panbyborougli,  Vt.,  for  adultery  with  Hiss  Battle  Allen. 
The  young  lady  was  on  the  witness  stand  nine  hours  and 
made  a  clean  breast  of  the  affair,  making  the  preacher's 
guilt  most  apparent  to  all  present 

Rev.  John  W.  Hanna,  Presiding  Elder,  and  the  most 
prominent  Methodist  preacher  in  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
and  one  of  the  ablest  lights  in  the  Episcopal  Church  South, 
had  recently  in  Murphysboro,  Tenn.,  a  trial  before  a 
church  investigating  committee,  consisting  of  Bishop 
McTyeirie  and  five  prominent  clergymen,  for  gross  immor- 
ality in  writing  a  lascivious  letter  to  Miss  Parilla  Nailor  for 
trying  to  seduce  her  from  the  path  of  virtue  and  to  yield 
herself  to  his  lustful  embrace.  In  his  amorous  suit  he  di- 
rected the  attention  of  the  young  lady  to  the  seventh  chap- 
ter of  Solomon's  Songs,  hoping  the  sensuous  character  of 
that  portion  of  "God's  Word  "  would  aid  him  in  his  unholy 
enterprise.  Fortunately  the  young  lady's  brother  inter- 
cepted the  base  letter  and  detected  the  hoary,  clerical 
lecher.  Upon  exposure  he  became  very  penitent  and  ac- 
knowledged in  great  sorrow  his  criminal  folly.  The  love 
of  Jesus  in  his  case  was  altogether  insufficient  to  keep  him 

pure  and  upright. 

Rev.  John  S.  Glendenning,  of  Jersey  City.  N.  J.,  it  will 
be  remembered  had  a  long  trial  for  the  seduction  of  Mary 
K  Pomeroy.  who  deposed  with  her  dying  breath  that  he 
was  the  father  of  her  child,  and  that  he  had  seduced  her. 
Although  the  clergyman  boldly  and  persistently  asserted 
his  innocence,  the  public  were  satisfied  that  he  was  a  basely 
guilty  man.  He  subsequently  removed  to  Henry  county, 
EliDois,  and  preached  to  the  faithful  there. 

Rev.  W.  H.  Batler,  pastor  of  St,  Luke's  church.  (Lu- 
theran) of  New  York,  was  arraigned  before  the  church 
authorities  for  deceiving  a  young  lady  under  promise  of 
marriage.  He  was  requested  to  resign  his  charge  and  he 
had  the  good  sense  to  do  so. 

Rev.  Austin  Hutchinson,  of  Termont,  was  charged  by 


his  own  daughter,  Ida,  with  being  the  father  of  her  babe 
five  months  old,  she  asserting  the  fact  with  great  persist- 
ency. 

Bev.  Benjamin  P.  Bowen,  Cold  Spring,  K  Y.;  was  tried 
for  malicious  trespass.  , 

Rev.  L.  L.  Copeland,  of  Vermont,  and  a  revivalist  of 
some  note,  was  denounced  as  a  rascal.  The  credentials 
upon  which  he  entered  the  ministry,  even,  were  proDounced 
forgeries,  and  he  was  accused  of  being  a  swindler  and  a 
bigamist. 

Rev.  J.  H.  Todd,  of  Sioux  City,  Iowa,  played  an  unmanly 
trick  upon  his  wife.  While  she  was  mending  his  pants  ho 
slipped  out  of  the  house  and  eloped  with  a  milliner. 

Rev.  A.  B.  Burdick,  of  River  Point,  R.  L,  was  guilty  of 
improprieties  of  a  social  character  with  female  lambs  of  his 
flock.  Eight  witnesses  testified  pointedly  against  him,  his 
guilt  was  unmistakably  established,  and  he  was  compelled 
to  **  step  down  and  out." 

Rev.  K.  N.  Wright  and  Rev.  Mr.  Kristeller,  both  con- 
tested for  the  same  pulpit  at  Newbridge,  N.  Y.  The  first 
had  preached  there  a  year,  and  was  opposed  to  leaving. 
The  second  was  appointed  by  the  Conference  to  succeed 
him.  The  first  refused  to  vacate;  hence  the  quarrel.  The 
Church  divided  as  to  the  two  claimants,  some  joining  one 
side,  and  some  the  other.  The  quarrel  waxed  very  warm 
until  the  saints  shook  their  fists  at  each  other  in  a  very  un- 
godly manner. 

Rev.  A.  W.  Torrey,  KalamaEoo,  Mich.,  was  tried  by  the 
Church  for  falsehood,  and  found  guilty. 

Rev.  Mr.  Coleman,  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  in  E.  JanesvUle 
Circuit,  Iowa,  was  held  in  $5,000  bonds  for  committing  a 
rape  on  a  girl  thirteen  years  *ld. 

Rev.  Mr.  Parshall,  Oa'^jand.  Cal.,  was  not  long  ago  tried 
by  a  church  council  for  lascivious  conduct  with  sisters  of 
the  congregation.    He  was  convicted  and  left  town. 

Rev.  John  Hiiichin&on.  Episcopal,  Boston,  was  sent  to  tho 


IC 


% 


TBS  HUMPMBgr ■  MMUITCT  sDcinnoR; 

Hoase  of  Correction  for  eight  montiit,  for  twindlinic  George* 
▲lien  onl  of  ft  thousand  dollars. 

BeT.  A.  W.  Eastman,  West  Cornwall,  O.,  wta  expelled 
from  the  Bikptist  Church  for  immorality. 

Another  Baptist  clergyman  at  Sahin,  Mich.,  was  detected 
In  too  mnch  familiarity  with  some  of  the  sisters,  and  ran 
away  to  avoid  the  shame  of  exposure. 

BeT.  Wm.  Rice,  Methodist,  Mason,  Mich.,  was  eonyicted 
of  adultery. 

A  pious  reverend  in  Warren,  McComh  Ca,  Mich.,  waa 
charged  with  violating  a  dozen  school  girls  and  swearing 
them  to  secrecy  on  the  cruciflz  of  the  ehureh.  He  rait 
away  to  escape  exposure. 

Bev.  D.  M.  White,  Presbyter! wi,  Pittshnrg;  Fa.,  wat 
■ent  to  State  prison  for  two  years  for  stealing  money. 

Bev.  D.  S.  K.  Bine,  same  place,  was  charged  by  a  young 
woman  with  sexual  irregularities. 

Bev.  Dr.  Wm.  G.  Murray,  rector  of  the  Central  Churchy 
Baltimore,  got  druok  and  was  extremely  profane. 

Bev.  A.  Steelson  plead  guilty  to  the  charge  of  too  much 
intimacy  with  the  sifters. 

'Bev.  James  Beedsdolph,  Methodist,  Adrian,  Mich.,  was 
sent  to  the  Detroit  House  of  Correction  for  sixty  days,  for 
false  pretenses  and  getting  drunk. 

Bev.  Mr.  Beynolds,  Muhlenburg  Co.,  Ky.,  brutally  and 
repeatedly  whipped  his  daughter,  eighteen  years  of  age,  to 
force  her  to  marry  a  man  she  did  not  love. 

Bev.  Hiram  Meeker,  Granville,  N.  T.,  was  convicted  of 
fornication  and  adultery. 

Bev.  H.  Foster,  Circleville,  O.,  was  compelled  to  marry 
his  servant  girl  whom  he  had  seduced. 

Bev.  John  Seeley  Watson,  Kansas,  murdered  his  wife. 

Bev.  Mr.  Johnson,  Williamson  Co.,  Tenn.,  seduced  a  girl 
fourteen  years  of  age. 

.  Bev.  £.  8.  Whipple,  Baptist,  of  Hilsdale  College,  Mich., 
seduced  a  deacon's  wife,  and  when  charged  with  the 


THE  HI7MPHBBT-BB17NBTT  DISfTUBSION. 


S51 


crime  was  compelled  to  confess  it  He  afterwards  prayed 
with  the  deacon  and  his  wife.  The  deacon  must  have* 
•»nioyed  that. 

Bev.  Richard  Dunlap,  Baptist,  Midland,  Mich.,  was  con- 
victed of  adultery  with  a  Mrs.  Burnett. 

Rev.  Mr.  Davis,  same  denomination,  was  arraigned  for 
adultery  with  sister  Brunk. 

Rev.  Mr.  Kirby,  Chambersbnrg,  0.,  was  fined  $300  for 
seduction. 

Rev.  Malcolm  Clark,  superintendent  of  the  Sunday- 
school,  Howard,  Mich.,  ran  away  with  $400  belonging  to 
his  mother-in-law,  and  also  forged  her  name  to  obtain 
other  money. 

Rev.  Mr.  White,  Washington,  Pa.,  was  found  guilty  of 
seduction. 

Bev.  J.  H.  Hose,  Baptist.  Hartford,  Mich.,  was  guilty  of 
forgery. 

Rev.  Jay  H.  Fairchild,  lea-Jing  Congregational  clergy- 
man of  Boston,  after  honorable  service  in  the  pulpit  many 
years,  was  guilty  of  intercourse  with  the  sisters.  Left 
Boston,  went  to  Exeter,  was  tried  for  seduction.  Confessed 
that  he  had  bound  the  young  girl  by  a  solemn  oath  not  to 
divulge  that  she  ever  knew  him.  He  attempted  to  preach 
again  in  Boston  but  was  not  successful;  was  charged  by  the 
public  press  with  the  crime;  brought  suit  for  libel,  and 
upon  full  exaoiination  of  the  case  was  defeated. 

Rev.  Dr.  Fay,  a  very  eminent  divine  of  Boston  for  over 
twenty-five  years,  had  been  esteemed  and  beloved  by  his 
Church;  committed  fornication  and  adultery;  was  charged 
with  it;  denied  it  and  swore  that  he  was  innocent.  A  Church 
Committee  examined  the  case,  were  disposed  to  clear  him; 
were  about  to  report  him  innocent  when  one  of  them,  Dr 
Hooper,  said  he  could  not  sign  the  report,  and  proposed  to 
adjourn  for  a  fuller  examination.  When  Dr.  Fay  heard  this 
he  begged  them  not  to  adjourn;  said  he  had  a  communi- 
cation  to  present,  when  he  confessed  his  crime  in  full. 


m 


TBM  ■UUimJUT^BBAmETT  DlflCUSSKKET. 


Her.  Mr.  Btrasbnrg,  First  Pretbyterian  Charch  at  Albany, 
large  coBgregation  of  influenUal  citizens,  and  those  con- 
nected  with  State  gOTernment,  an  able,  eloquent,  and  pop- 
ular preacher.  Accused  of  debauchery,  herding  with 
negroes,  and  of  the  lowest  and  dirtiest  conduct.  Was  put 
on  trial,  found  guilty  and  deposed.  Thus  was  prematurely 
hushed  a  voice  eloquent  for  Jesua. 

Rev.  Hr.  Southard,  son  of  Senator  Southard  from  New 
Jersey.  Was  founder  of  the  Calvary  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  city.  Accused  of  gross  immoralities.  The  church 
tried  to  shield  him,  but  his  character  was  deemed  so  base 
that  he  could  not  continue  preaching  here ;  went  to  Kewark 
and  founded  the  *'  Home  of  Prayer;  was  kicked  out,  and 
went  South,  dividing  his  time  while  there  between  the  pul- 
pit and  low  dens  of  prostitution  in  southern  cities.  He  died 
drunk  in  a  low  brothel  in  New  Orleans. 

Rev.  Augustus  Doolittle  (or  St.  Clair,  as  he  sometimes 
called  himself),  preached  at  Hoosic  Falls,  and  was  accused 
of  unlawful  intimacy  with  a  wife  of  one  of  the  deacons  of 
his  church.  Was  first  charged  with  the  guilt  by  a  single 
person,  who  wa?  beset  and  persecuted.  Additional  proofs 
came  to  light,  and  after  several  months  the  seductive  saint 
confessed  in  full  that  the  crime  had  been  committed  by  him 
on  numerous  occasions  for  several. 

Prof.  Webster,  a  pious  Christian,  connected  with  the 
leading  univeraities  of  Boston,  murdered  Dr.  Parkman,  etc. 
Denied  his  crime  most  persistently,  but  the  Jury  had  suffl 
cient  proofs  to  find  him  guilty,  and  he  was  duly  executed. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Reed,  Congregational,  Maiden,  Mass.,  was 
guilty  of  most  heinous  crimes  with  youths  of  both  sexes, 
and  children  even.  Was  proved  guilty  of  most  disgusting 
and  revolting  crimes. 

Rev.  Mr.  Pomeroy,  Congregational,  preached  in  a  fashion- 
able church  in  Bangor,  Me.  Was  Secretary  of  American 
Board,  a  position  of  high  honor  and  tmst.  Was  followed 
to  houses  ol  ilMsme  in  Botlon,  la  this  city  tB4  la  cities  oC 


THB  HUMPHREY -BENNETT  DISCUSSION.  263 

Uia  West.    Denied  that  he  was  guilty  of  any  impropriety 
but  claimed  that  he  visited  those  places  to  reform  the  sinful 
inmates     He  was  charged,  tried,  condemned  and  deposed. 
Rev.  Charles  Rich,  from  Boston,  was  settled  over  a  most 
respectable  church  in  Washington,  the  one  in  which  Dr 
Bunderiand  preached  for  several  years  afterwards.    He  was 
convicted  of  immoralities  and  indecencies  unfit  to  be  named 
and  died  in  disgrace.  * 

Rev  Mr.  Thompson,  Presbyterian,  preached  in  Buffalo 
and  afterwards  in  Arch  street,  Philadelphia,  was  over  and 
over  again  charged  with  adultery.   Was  tried  several  times, 
but  managed  through  the   sharp  practice  of  friends  to 
escape. 

Rev  Mr.  Johnson,  of  the  Evafii;elist,  a  very  pious  man.  a 
oud  advocate  of  temperance,  was  several  times  seen  in  the 
third  tier  of  the  theater  drinking  with  low  prostitutes  and 
acting  disgracefully.  He  was  tried  and  deposed  in  disgrace. 
Rev.  Dr.  Magoon,  at  this  time  President  of  Jones  Col- 
lege,  a  Congregational  institution,  was  guilty  of  very 
licentious  conduct  with  females  of  his  congregation  Was 
tried  convicted  and  deposed.  But  after  confessing  and 
humbling  himself  was  taken  back  into  fellowship  and  set 
to  preaching  again. 

Rev.  Horace  C.  Taylor,  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  church 
at  Oberlm,  O.,  was  guilty  of  seduction,  was  tried,  con- 
victed and  imprisoned.  Was  afterwards  restored  to  the 
mmistry,  but  he  fell  again  and  was  more  sinful  than  before 

Eev.  Richard  Pink,  of  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  was  in  1874 
found  guilty  of  adultery  with  a  young  sister  of  his  church 
He  was  eloquent,  popular  and  highly  esteemed.    The  case 
was  so  plain  against  him  that  he  readily  resigned 

Rev.  Joseph  Stillim,  Winchester,  Pa.,  was  charged  with 
mining  a  young  lady.  Miss  Sarah  Hall,  who  stood  high  in 
the  society  of  that  locality.  The  great  disgrace  rendered 
lier  insane,  but  In  her  lucid  moments  she  averred  that  the 
reverend  gentleman  quoted  scripture  to  her  to  prove  that 


SSi 


THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DIBCUSSIOH. 


ii 


his  conduct  was  in  keeping  with  the  word  of  God.    She 
unfortunately  trusted  too  much  in  a  false  shepherd. 

Father  Forhain,  of  the  Catholic  church,  Chicago,  was 
charged  with  and  tried  for  embezzling  several  thousand 
dollars  that  belonged  to  the  church.  He  claimed  that  a 
pari  of  the  money  was  won  by  gambling  in  a  church  fair, 
that  there  was  no  legal  owner  of  it,  and  that  he  had  as 
much  right  to  it  as  any  one.    He  was  held  in  $5,000  bail. 

Rev.  Alfred  N.  Gilbert,  of  Baltimore,  had  charges  pre- 
f erred  against  him  by  members  of  his  own  church  for  sinful 
intimacies  with  a  grass  widow  also  belonging  to  his  congre- 
gation. The  widow  was  induced  to  leave,  and  the  matter 
was  piously  hushed  up,  and  the  pastor's  preaching  and 
praying  were  resumed. 

Rev.  A.  J.  Russell,  Methodist,  preached  in  Berrien  Springs, 
Mich.,  in  the  year  1876,  holding  one  or  two  revival  meetings 
during  the  time,  and  securing  quite  a  number  of  converts. 
He  also  developed  a  great  amount  of  "true  inwardness." 
On  one  occasion  he  met  a  young  lady  member  of  his  church 
and  went  home  with  her.  The  family  being  absent,  he  fol- 
lowed her  into  her  private  room  and  attempted  to  bestow  a 
•*  holylnsB"  a  la  Beecher.  The  young  lady,  a  school  teacher 
of  most  excellent  character,  demurred  to  the  proceedings, 
ftnd  exposed  the  reverend  rascal;  but  for  this  the  elders 
advanced  him  to  higher  honors  in  the  church. 

Rev.  Mr.  Humpstone,  Malta,  N.  Y..  in  coniequence  of 
a  church  difficulty,  tendered  his  resignation  in  April,  1875. 
On  the  following  Sunday  it  was  arranged  that  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Cook  should  officiate  in  his  place;  but  as  he  did  not  appear, 
it  was  suggested  by  a  member  that  brother  Humpstone  read 
the  services.  Dr.  Bellinger  opposed  the  proposition  and 
rebuked  the  brother  for  making  it.  When  brother  Hump- 
stone arose  to  speak,  Dr.  Bellinger  ordered  him  to  sit  down. 
The  ex-pastor  would  not  be  thus  suppressed.  The  con 
tending  parties  then  clinched,  and  a  disgraceful  fight  ensued. 
Rev.  J.  K.  BUllwell,  of  Logansport,  Ind.,  wis  brought 


THE  HUMPHEBT-BENHETT  DISCUSSION. 


8» 


before  the  Church  for  making  improper  advances  tc  the 
aisters  of  his  flock.  A  clear  case  was  made  against  him, 
and  without  adding  falsehood  and  perjury  to  his  other 
crimes,  he  had  the  discretion  to  confess  his  offenses,  resign 
his  charge,  and  leave  the  place.  The  local  papers  regretted 
the  circumstance,  more  especially  as  it  came  in  the  midst^f 
a  successful  revival,  which  was  sensibly  checked  by  the 
publicity  of  the  clerical  scandal. 

Rev.  Thomas  Barnard,  of  London,  recently  got  disgrace- 
fully drunk,  and  in  that  condition  went  to  the  Globe  Thea- 
tre, where  Lydia  Thonxpson  was  engaged.  That  evening  a 
new  piece  was  put  upon  the  stage,  in  which  Mrs.  Thompson 
did  not  appear.  This  so  enraged  the  drunken  parson  that 
he  stamped,  shouted  and  hissed  to  such  an  extent  that  a 
policeman  arrested  him  and  took  him  to  prison. 

Rev.  J.  J.  Reeder,  a  young  clergyman,  went  in  1874  io 
New  Milford,  Pa.,  and  studied  for  a  time  under  the  Rev. 
E.  F.  Bledsoe,  pastor  of  the  Methodist  church  in  that  vU- 
lage.  Subsequently  he  was  sent  to  Newark,  N.  J.,  Confer- 
ence to  fill  a  vacancy  at  that  place.  The  young  divine 
proved  to  be  popular,  especially  with  the  younger  sisters  of 
the  society,  with  whom  he  spent  the  most  of  his  time.  Ho 
afterwards  manifested  a  great  fondness  for  horoe-flesh.  He 
traded  in  fast  horses,  and  soon  obtained  the  reputation  of 
being  a  good  judge  of  equine  stock.  He  finally  purchased 
a  valuable  horse,  for  which  he  gave  his  note;  but  just  be- 
fore it  became  due  he  suddenly  decamped  for  parts  un- 
known, leaving  many  unpaid  bills  behind.  In  his  hasty 
Hight  he  left  his  trunks  and  books,  which  were  sold  to  pay 
his  debts;  but  unfortunately  they  went  but  a  short  way 
towards  paying  them.  It  is  not  known  in  what  part  of  the 
moral  vineyard  he  is  now  laboring. 

Rev.  Charles  S.  Macready,  of  Middleboro,  Mass.,  on  May 
20, 1875,  commited  suicide  by  cutting  his  throat  with  a  razor. 

Rev.  J.  J.  Howell,  Presbyterian,  Minneapolis,  Minn., 
Imn^  himself  in  M%y«  1875. 


i\ 


M 


1  I 

I 


Vm  HUMPHRET-BEinaBTT  DiBctrasioir. 


1^ 


tt 


a 


Rev.  Samuel  B.  Wilson,  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church, 
LouiBvlUc,  Ky..  was  in  May,  1875,  deposed  by  the  Presby. 
tery  for  immoral  condact 

Rev.  John  W.  Porter,  in  the  Winter  and  Spring  of  1875, 
liad  a  charge  at  Van  Sycles  Corners,  Hantington  Co.,  N.  J. 
In  addition  to  preaching,  he  also  taught  school.  It  turned 
out  that  the  villain  basely  seduced  one  of  his  young  female 
pupils  named  Silenda  Stires,  daughter  of  Peter  W.  Stires,  a 
well-to-do  farmer  in  the  neighborhood.  While  she  was  yet 
a  mere  child,  she  was  about  to  become  a  mother.  Upon 
being  questioned,  she  informed  her  parents  of  the  nature  of 
the  lessons  the  clergyman  had  taught  her.  When  con- 
fronted by  the  injured  father,  the  villain  confessed  the 
crime,  and  turned  over  his  horse  and  buggy  to  partly  make 
amends  for  his  shameful  conduct,  and  with  his  heart-broken 
wife,  took  the  first  train  for  another  field  of  labor. 

The  case  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  is  fresh  in  the  minds 
of  all;  of  his  various  liasons  with  the  females  of  his  flock, 
particularly  with  Mrs  Elisabeth  R.  Tilton.  His  protracted 
trial  of  six  months  for  the  crime  of  adultery;  the  amount  of 
damaging  testimoay  that  was  arrayed  against  him,  his 
confession,  etc,  ai©  not  forgotten.  Probably  twenty-five 
millions  of  the  people  of  America  believe  him  guilty  not 
only  of  the  offense  charged  against  him,  but  also  of  the 
most  barefaced  perjury,  when  for  thirteen  consecutive  days 
he  swore  positively  that  he  bad  not  done  it.  He  still  fills  the 
pulpit  as  a  spotless  shepherd,  to  lead  the  little  lambs  to  the 
arms  of  Jesus. 

Lucius  M.  Pond,  of  Worcester,  Mass.,  a  aealous  leader  in 
the  Methodist  Church,  and  very  active  in  all  religious 
movements,  committed  forgeries  to  the  amount  of  $100,000^ 
and  borrowed  and  purloined  all  he  could  obtain,  after 
which  he  suddenly  left  and  had  it  given  out  that  he 
^ad  been  murdered  for  his  money.  He  intended  to 
liave  gone  to  Australia,  but  was  arrested  in  -San  Francisco 
mad  was  brought  back,  convicted  and  punished. 


THE  HUMFHBET  -  BXKIIBTT  DttCUBHON. 


957 


Rev.  Aug.  C.  Stange,  Presbyterian,  of  Patterson,  N.  J., 
was  guilty  of  gross  improprieties  with  Sister  Pfennibuker 
in  the  church.  He  was  tried  and  acknowledged  his 
guilt.  The  sister,  however,  accused  the  clergyman  of 
forcing  her  contrary  to  her  wishes. 

Rev.  John  James  Thompson,  of  Orange  Co.,  N.  Y.,  was 
arraigned  for  making  a  criminal  attack  upon  a  young  female 
member  of  Lis  church.  The  plea  made  in  his  defense  was 
insanity.  There  has  been  too  much  of  that  kind  of  insanity 
about. 

Rev.  Ambleman  Wright,  of  Whitestown,  N.  Y„  by  pres- 
ents of  money,  coaxing,  etc.,  induced  a  little  girl  of  twelve 
years  to  yield  her  body  to  his  lusts.  He  was  a  man  with  a 
wife  and  married  daughters. 

Rev.  Fred.  A.  Bell,  of  Brooklyn,  was  charged  with  mak- 
ing improper  advances  to  Mrs.  Mary  Morris,  a  member  of 
his  church. 

L.  K.  Strauss,  superintendent  of  the  Sunday-school  in 
Huntington  Co.,  Pa.,  and  deemed  a  very  exemplary  Chris- 
tian, seduced  one  of  the  teachers,  Miss  West.  The  crimi- 
nal practices  were  continued  a  long  time  until  the  young 
lady  became  stricken  with  remorse  and  confessed.  He  was 
tried  and  fined  #4,500. 

Rev.  E.  D.  Winslow,  of  Boston,  swindled  confiding  banks 
and  financiers  out  of  $500,000  and  left  suddenly  and  has  not 
yet  returned. 

Rev.  J.  J.  Kane  was  sued  by  his  wife  for  a  divorce  on 
account  of  inhuman  treatment. 

Elder  Doolittle  was  tried  in  the  Juneau  county.  Wis., 
Circuit  Court  on  a  charge  of  incest  and  adultery.  The 
testimony  was  conclusive,  he  was  found  guilty  and  was 
sentenced  to  six  years'  imprisonment  in  the  State  prison  at 
Waupun.  He  was  over  sixty-three  years  old,  and  one  of  his 
victims  was  a  simple-minded  girl,  his  own  niece. 

Rev.  F.  W.  May,  presiding  elder  of  the  Methodist  church, 
Chesaning,  Mich.,  was  guilty  of  grossly  immoral  practicea 


w. 


THB  KiniPHR»T-BBNNETT  DIBCUB8I0H. 

With  several  of  the  steters.    A  number  of  them  testified 

against  him.  . 

ReT,  Henry  A.  Heath,  Methodist,  formerly  of  Maine  and 
later  of  Morrison,  lU.,  was  a  lecherous  old  hypocrite.  He 
left  his  wife  in  Maine  and  committed  adultery  with  numer- 
ous  females,  both  pious  and  not  pious.    His  crimes  were 

many  and  black. 

Rev.  Joseph  M.  Berry  was  tried  by  his  church  in  Ash- 
viUe,  N.  C,  for  drunkenness  and  adultery,  and  was  found 

guilty.  _  „ 

Rev.  Jonathan  Turner,  Methodist,  Fourth  street,  PhUa- 
delphia,  was  arraigned  for  embepling  from  Mr.  Myers 
and  was  held  in  $1,000  bail. 

Rev.  P.  F.  Rea,  of  Durham,  Conn.,  was  expelled  from 
the  Congregational  church  for  drunkenness. 

Rev.  Beth  B.  Coats,  of  Dallas  City,  IlL.  was  tried  for  im- 
proper conduct  with  the  females  of  his  congregation,  both 
single  and  married.    The  testimony  was  explicit  and  unfit 

for  publication.  j     .*v 

Rev.  Mr.  Parker,  Presbyterian,  AshUnd,  Ky..  eloped  with 
a  young  girl,  daughter  of  a  deacon  of  the  church,  and  left 
a  wife  and  several  children.  .  .  ^    ♦ 

Rev.  Francis  K  Buffum.  Congregationalist,  was  tried  at 
Hartford,  Conn.,  for  holding  criminal  mtercourse  with 
Miss  Cora  Lord,  who  lived  in  his  family.  He  procured  an 
abortion  upon  the  young  woman.    His  wife  left  him  and 

sued  for  a  divorce. 

Rev  Mr.  Kendrick  seduced  a  little  girl,  the  organist  of 
his  church,  and  but  thirteen  years  of  age.  He  did  it  with 
cheap  jewelry  and  a  twenty-flve  cent  penknife. 

Thomas  W.  Piper,  sexton  of  a  Boston  church,  ravished 
a  chUd  five  years  old,  named  Mabel  Young,  and  murdered 
her  in  the  belfry  of  the  church. 

Rev  E.  S.  Fit«,  Southampton,  Mass..  was  tried  for  very 
Improper  conduct  with  the  sisters.  The  evidence  wai  of 
the  moat  tpicy  chan«t«r  and  nther  unfit  for  publication. 


THE   HUilPHBEY-BENNETT  DISCUaSION. 

*  The  brethren  and  sisters  did  all  they  could  to  screen  him, 
but  bis  guilt  was  too  apparent. 

Rev.  O.  M.  Davis  was  caught  by  his  wife  in  a  very  im- 
proper  connection  with  another  lady,  and  this  in  the  church. 
Much  excitement  in  consequence. 

Rev.  D.  Ellington  Burr,  of  EUardsville,  Mo.,  was  tried 
and  suspended  for  three  years  for  using  intoxicating  liq- 
uors, and  being  criminally  intimate  with  women.   . 

Rev.  J.  B.  Patterson,  Presbyterian,  Slixabeth,  K  X., 
upon  an  examination  being  instituted,  confessed  to  being 
guilty  of  dninkennsss  and  immoral  conduct  with  the  sisters. 
He  was  very  contrite. 

Rev.  James  Regan,  Methodist,  Madison,  Ind..  was  de- 
posed for  improper  intercourse  with  Mrs.  McHenry,  a  beau- 
tiful widow.  The  crime  was  committed  on  board  a  steam- 
boat on  the  Ohio  River. 

Rev.  C.  D.  Lathrop  was  expelled  by  the  First  Congrega- 
tional Church  of  Amherst,  Mass.,  for  cruelty  to  his  family, 
and  other  unchristian  conduct. 

Rev.  Arthur  Watson,  Protestant,  Killowen  near  Kinman, 
over  fifty  years  of  age,  killed  his  wife  by  shooting  her. 

Rev.  E.  P.  Stemson,  of  Castleton,  N.  Y.,  was  found 
intoxicated  in  the  streets  of  this  city  and  was  arrested  by 
oflicer  Ryckman.    The  Judge  in  kindness  let  him  oflEl 

Rev.  Thomas  B.  Bott,  of  one  of  the  Baptist  churches  in 
Philadelphia,  has  had  many  charges  preferred  against  him 
for  lascivious  conduct  with  various  females.  The  last  one 
was  Miss  Louisa  Younger,  daughter  of  one  of  the  deacons 
in  his  church.  It  was  proved  that  he  visited  her  at  unsea- 
sonable hours,  that  they  passed  several  days  together  at  a 
place  of  Summer  resort;  they  went  in  bathing  together,  and 
he  was  seen  in  a  nearly  naked  state  in  her  private  room. 
She  was  seen  sitting  in  his  lap,  and  they  were  kissing  each 
other,  etc.  He  has  a  wife  and  family,  and  the  latest  newi 
in  reference  to  him  is  that  his  wife  has  brought  suit  against 
him  for  neglect  and  desertion. 


C'j     in  f*- 


m 


Tha..  Brother  Humphrey.  I  bare  giren  y««^»"«  « '^j 
rtaUmeitof  the  crime,  and  Bhortcommg.  <rf  «>»»  «»"•  °' 
J^Sw-eiti«eBS  who  would  have  it  understood  ha  hey 
^  neamto  God  th«.  the  masses  of  the  people  that  they 
^  fe'orld  with  an  extra  amount  of  aid  from  on  hi.h.  and 
r,^Zf  iTfluence  at  the  Throne  of  Grace  than  the  aver 
Ziot  mankind.  1  assure  you  though  I  have  gone  into  the 
Thject  at  some  length,  that  it  is  by  no  mean,  exh^s^e^ 
I  can  furnish  you  with  a  good  deal  more  of  the  .ame  kind 

riiould  you  wish  it  „_.„i  nt  tha 

I  have  »mply  mentioned  the  »»"'«.»' •^"'"'*' 
characters  «id  their  crimes,  without  gmng  a  moiety,  even 
TZ  d«nuable  practices  of  which  they  were  gu^    J 
have  now  in  course  of  preparation  a  ^orkj^Wcb  w.11^. 
out  in  a  few  months,  entitled  "T"  Cha««^.  o,  th» 
fL«cH-  or  Biographical  Sketches  of  Eminent  Christian. 
^1.2  L^o  of  one  thou.«.d  pages,  and  will  conUin 
^:l^  Of  much  that  ha.  he«i  ^»-Jj  ^'fj^^^ 
.hove  named,  and  by  many  other..  In  tte  name  of  Chris 
:Sy.    Sucha.wishtoinformthem«.v^ofm«yof^. 
facts  in  the  rise  and  progress  of  Christian,  y.  lU  «'">«••»« 
^sLs,  it.  persecution,  and  executions,  iu  w*"  -«»  "^ 
«cres  ito  UMUtionsness  and  immoralities,  will  find  in  the 
"S^onaof  the  Church"  the  information  tbey^^ . 

imTy  mention  in  connection  with  the  fraotj^^^*' 
ttatmore  of  them  have  been  hung  U.  ^'''^''^'^.^^ 
«lr.  than  of  Infidels  More  of  them  are  in  our  State, 
jrn  tciita.  offense.  A.  compared  -th  ..tor.  wjo 
^  often  denouuceda.  a  wicked  clasB.  '"'"ordmg  to  .Ut* 
^  carefully  compiled,  clergymen  have  committed  more 
Orders  than  actors  in  the  proportion  of  twenty  to  one. 
«^  ley  exceed  actors  In  about  the  «im.  proportion  in 

•eductions  and  adultertes.  ,  ^  ,  ,   /t#  ♦^t-x  ^rnva 

%  ,h.  charges  you  made  against  MdelaOf  trt.e)pn.Te 
th.m  to  be  b«l  men  Mid  In  error,  doe.  not  the  array  of 
S  tl»  I  have  pmented  ^;.i».t «!«  American  clergy 


THX  UUMFUUBT-BBITNETT  mSCUBglOK, 


Ul 


Incontestibly  prove  them  not  only  weak  and  bad  men, 
but  utterly  unworthy  to  be  looked  upon  as  guides  and 
leaders  of  the  young  and  inexperienced,  and  entirely  mis- 
taken in  the  superiority  of  the  system  they  advocate  ?  Can 
a  good  tree  bear  so  much  bad  fruit  ? 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  instances  of  clerical 
criminality  here  noted  are  but  a  small  part  of  the  cases  that 
actually  occur.  But  few  of  those  that  have  been  made 
public  are  named  here,  and  not  one  case  in  fifty  is  suffered 
to  come  to  light.  '*For  the  good  of  the  cause"  every  in- 
stance of  this  kind  is  smothered  and  covered  up  that  can  be, 
and  it  is  only  here  and  there  a  case  comes  to  the  ear  of  the 
public.  But  those  that  are  known,  are  enough  to  appall 
the  stoutest  hearts  and  strike  conviction  deep  into  the 
thinking  men  and  women  of  the  country,  that  they  are  sup- 
porting a  fallible  and  useless  class  of  privileged  characters 
that  would  be  doing  far  better  were  they  engaged  in  some 
honest  and  useful  calling,  producing  something  or  manu- 
facturing something  of  value  to  the  human  race. 

The  fact  is,  the  priesthood,  as  a  class,  have  for  thou- 
sands of  years,  and  under  various  systems  of  religion, 
been  living  upon  the  credulous  masses  and  drawing  their 
support  from  the  patient,  submissive  toilers  who  are  willing 
to  labor  for  them.  The  priesthood  have  never  been  a  pro- 
ducing class.  They  have  not  grown  what  they  have  needed 
to  eat,  nor  spun  and  woven  what  they  needed  to  wear,  but 
they  have  fed  upon  the  best  of  food  and  have  been  clad  in 
the  finest  broadcloths,  linens,  and  furs,  because  it  has 
been  superstitiously  supposed  that  they  were  mediators 
between  the  gods  and  the  people,  and  were  able  to  tell  the 
gods  what  the  people  wanted  of  them,  and  in  return  give 
the  will  of  the  gods  to  the  people.  I  mean  nothing  personal 
'.H  this,  friend  Humphrey.  I  entertain  much  respect  for  you 
and  believe  you  honest  and  sincere,  but  I  think  1  have 
correctly  stated  the  character  of  the  priests  of  the 
world. 


TKl  HUXPHRKTBINNBTT  DISCUMIOS. 


THB  HUMPHBBT-BBNNETT  DIBCIT38ION. 


2m 


hd%  me  state,  too,  that  they  are  all  upholding  systems  of 
■uperatition  and  error.  Whether  priests  of  Brahma,  Ormuzd, 
Fohi,  OsiruB,  Zeus,  Jupiter,  Odin,  Tbor,  Allah  or  Jehovah, 
it  Is  all  the  same.  Their  rule  is  to  hoodwink  the  people 
and  to  draw  their  support  from  them,  without  rendering 
a  just  equivalent  in  return. 

All  the  religions  of  the  world  have  been  handed  down 
from  the  ages  of  prehistoric  barbarism,  myths  and  super* 
atition.  The  Christian  religion  is  no  exception  to  this  rule. 
It  is  made  up  of  Judaism  and  Paganism.  I  make  the  asser- 
tion and  call  upon  you  to  disprove  it,  that  Christianity  con- 
tains not  an  original  dogma,  rite,  sacrament  or  point  of  be- 
Utl  Everything  upon  its  programme  was  borrowed  from 
the  Jewish  and  Pagan  theologies,  and  largely  the  latter. 

The  fundamental  legend  or  idea  of  a  son  of  God  being 
bom  of  a  virgin  was  old  long  before  the  birth  of  Christi- 
anity. The  conception  of  Virgin  and  child  dates  away 
back  thousands  of  years.  The  Egyptians  had  their  Isis 
(virgin)  and  infant  three  and  four  thousand  years  ago.  The 
Hindoos,  the  Persians,  the  Egyptians,  the  Siamese,  the 
Thibetlans,  the  Grecians,  the  Scandinavians  and  many  other 
nationalities  had  similar  legends.  There  have  been— accord- 
ing to  the  old  legends— at  least  forty  different  saviors  and 
redeemers  bom  into  the  world,  and  a  large  proportion  of 
them  of  virgins  and  of  deiflc  paternity.  Nearly  half  of 
them,  after  a  life  of  holy  teaching,  performing  miracles, 
leading  obscure  lives,  it  has  been  believed  were  cracifled 
for  the  salvation  and  happiness  of  mankind. 

The  symbol  of  the  Cross  has  been  used  in  the  religions  of 
the  world  fully  three  thousand  years.  That  and  the  steepli 
were  handed  down  from  the  Phallic  worship. 

Baptism  by  water  was  practiced  as  a  pagan  rite  centuries 
before  Christianity  had  an  existence. 

Fasting,  Prayer  and  Praise  were  employed  thousands  of 
years  before  Christianity  began.  The  Trinity  and  the  Holy 
Qhost  were  early  pagan  conceptions. 


The  existence  of  a  devil  and  demons  was  believed  in  by 
pagan  nations  long  before  there  were  any  Christians  to  be- 
lieve in  them. 

Confession  of  sins,  monasteries,  monks,  nuns,  the  eucba- 
rist,  anointing  with  holy  oil,  belief  in  a  day  of  judgment,  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  in  angels  and  spirits,  the  sec- 
ond birth,  belief  in  sacred  writings  or  bibles,  holiness, 
repentance,  and  humility,  prevailed  among  pagans  many 
centuries  before  there  was  a  Christian  in  the  world.  This 
can  be  fully  substantiated,  and  if  it  is  not  true,  I  call  upon 
you  in  the  most  earnest  manner  to  disprove  it. 

If  what  I  have  stated  is  the  truth,  it  follows  that  the  great 
system  of  Christianity,  which  you  and  millions  of  others 
venerate,  is  simply  modified  Paganism,  and  that  the  story 
of  Jesus,  his  miraculous  birth,  hie  moral  teachings,  his 
band  of  followers,  his  ignominious  death  upon  the  cross, 
and  all  the  rest  of  it,  is  a  mere  clumsy  rehash,  or  plagia- 
rism of  the  old  pagan  fables.  I  am  honestly  of  the  opinion 
that  this  is  the  case,  and  that  a  man  of  your  intelligence  and 
research  ought  to  be  able  to  see  it  and  understand  it. 

I  charge  you,  then,  with  supporting  and  defending  a  bor- 
rowed system  of  myths  and  superstitions  handed  down 
from  the  ages  of  darkness  and  ignorance,  and  that  the 
supernaturalism  upon  which  it  is  founded  is  untrue  and 
impossible. 

I  should  rejoice  could  you  become  a  convert  to  the  truth 
as  it  is  in  the  Universe  and  is  revealed  by  science,  and  if 
you  could  freely  discard  all  belief  in  gods,  devils,  hobgob- 
lins, lakes  of  sulphur,  etc.,  until  you  have  some  proof  of  their 
existence,  and  reject  every  oreed  and  dogma  that  depends 
upon  supernaturalism  or  the  setting  aside  of  the  immutable 
laws  of  Nature. 

I  am  sincerely  yours, 

D.  M.  Bennett. 


m^^m 


«n  BUMFHBir-BBNHSTT  DliOUSBIOK. 


S65 


Mb.  D.  M.  Bbnkett,  Dear  &r  :  It  seems  to  me  that  you 
have  resorted  to  some  rather  imbecile  arguments ;  at  way 
rate,  I  think  that,  were  I  to  make  use  of  similar  ones,  you 
would  be  among  the  first  to  belittle  them.  For  instance, 
you  meet  my  observation  on  the  equal  silence  of  Herodotus 
about  Rome  end  Jerusalem  by  saying  that  '*  he  may  have 
also  visited  Rome,  and  his  allusions  to  that  city  may  have 
been  in  the  portions  of  his  works  that  are  lost."  Right  here 
let  me  ask  two  questions :  1st.  May  it  EOt  be  as  fairly  pre- 
sumed that  his  promised  but  missing  history  of  Assyria,  or 
Syria,  as  the  Greeks  called  it,  contained  '* allusions"  to 
Palestine  and  Jerusalem  ?  2nd.  What  would,  you  say  of  a 
Christian  critic,  if  he  should  base  an  explanatioa  of  a  diffi- 
cult passage  of  Scripture  on  the  supposed  contents  of  some 
of  the  lost  documents  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament! Again,  you  plead  for  Byron  that  '*had  he  lived 
to  late  manhood,  it  may  be  well  supposed  he  would  have 
*  sowed  his  wild  oats,' and  become  a  staid  and  exemplary 
member  of  society."  Tell  the  candid  truth  now,  Mr.  Ben- 
nett: would  you  show  any  respect  for  a  prospective  apology 
of  that  kind  for  a  wayward  professor  of  religion?  I  am 
afraid  we  should  have  to  hunt  up  your  **  lost  works »'  to 
find  an  instance  of  such  a  thing.  Speaking  of  my  exposure 
of  some  leading  Infidels,  you  say:  ''But  really,  what  does 
it  all  prove?  It  proves  that  unbelievers  are  human  beings, 
and  have  sometimes  made  mistakes.  What  class  of  men  is 
there  in  the  world,  that,  running  over  their  records  for  hun- 
dreds of  years,  as  many  charges  could  not  be  brought 
against  them  ?"  That  is  very  nice.  Of  course,  you  will  not 
o])ject  to  throwing  the  same  cloak  of  charity  over  the  "  mis 
Ukes"  of  the  professing  Christians  whom  you  have  enumer- 
ated.   A  good  rule  always  works  both  ways. 

A  few  weeks  ago,  I  law  a  couple  of  quoUtions  from  Panl. 


iB  the  Boston  Inwstigatar.  It  was  clear  that  their  drift  and 
meaning  had  never  been  investigated  by  that  Journ^  As 
the  Apostle  himself  said,  he  was  "slanderously  reported" 
(Rom.  iii,  8).  Imagine  my  surprise  at  finding'  the  same 
citations,  put  in  the  same  way,  in  your  last  Reply  I  I  could 
not  help  thinking  of  Byron's  lines,  slightly  modified: 

A  man  must  serve  his  time  to  every  trade. 
Save  oensure— critics  all  are  ready  made ; 
Take  hackney'd  jokes  from  Mendum,  got  by  rote. 
With  just  enough  of  learning:  to  misQuote ; 
A  mind  well  skilled  to  find  or  forge  a  fault, 
A  turn  for  punninsr.  call  it  Attio  salt. 

JSnolish  Bards  atid  Scotch  Beviewers, 

You  furnished  an  item  about  church  debts.    The  TribuM 
is  a  very  acceptable  authority ;  but  you  did  not  give  the 
date,  so  that  the  statement  you  refer  to  could  be  verified 
and  examined.    But  grant  that  there  are  fifty-four  churches 
in  New  York  city  under  "mortgages  amounting  to  $3,367,- 
886."    If  these  churches  were  each  under  a  debt  equal  to 
that  on  Paine  Hall  ($70,000),  the  sum  would  be  $3,780,000— 
almost  a  million  and  a  half  more.    And  it  should  not  be 
forgotten  in  this  eonnection  that  this  is  a  comparison  of 
fifiyfowr  churches  and  the  Christians  of  a  single  city,  with 
OTM  building  and  the  Infidels  ofIhA  whole  Western  Continent. 
Then  it  should  be  remembered  that  there  are  hundreds  of 
magnificent  churches,  and  thousands  of  tidy  chapels  all  over 
the  country,  entirely  free  of   debt.    You  will  see  by  the 
Directory  that  there  are  over  ^wo  hundred  and  fifty  in 
New  York  City  alone.    Most   emphatically,   then,   there 
is  nothing   in  this   direction   but  very  odious   compari- 
sons for   Infidelity.     Its   liberality  is   as  nothing  in  the 
p^ence  of  the  munificent  and  varied  generosity  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

Your  last  letter  is  the  fullest  and  clearest  illustration  I 
ever  saw  of  the  meaning  of  the  Latin  phrase,  ipse  dixit.  The 
solidified  and  petrified  Past  seems  to  be  mere  dough  in  your 


m:- 


M(  TBI  HmttaKK-BMIWl'"  DMCTiSKW. 

httd..  Tott  can  put  tte  features  and  Uneamentt  of  InllcW- 
tty  on  It  with  the  greatest  of  e«^  In  order  to  show  h... 
let  me  place  some  of  your  assertions  and  the  fixed  facU  of 
history  side  by  side: 

••  Voltaire  was  not  a  perjurer."  (D.  M.  Bennett). 

"When  very  hard  pushed,  he  would  not  swerve  from  » 
false  oath  "  (Morley's  VolUire.  N.  T..  1873  p.  200). 

"Eusebius  was  a  falsifier,  forger,  and  interpolater    (D. 

])£.  B  ). 

-  Euseblua  wrote  under  the  presture  of  the  great  commo- 
Uons  of  his  age,  but  with  much  freedom  from  prejudices, 
with  a  more  critical  spirit  thau  many  both  of  his  predeoes- 
sors  and  successors,  and  with  an  eccclesiastical  erudition 
uusurpassed  in  his  age"  (Ajnerican  Cyclopedia). 

-St.  Augustine  was  one  of  the  most  lecherous  anddia. 
•ipated  men  in  Carthage  "  (D.  M.  B.). 

That  is  true  of  him  only  when  he  was  an  unbeliever  in 

4;hristianity.    After  his  conversion  »•  it  is  believed  Uiat  he 

was  at  once  the  pumt,  the  wisest,  and  the  kdtsH  of  men. 

dually  mild  and  firm,  equally  prudent  and  fearless,  equally 

afriend  of  man  and  a  lover  of  God"  (Am.  Cyclopedia). 

••  Girard  did  not  make  his  wife  insane  by  quarreling  with 

her"  (D.  IL  B.).  .     ,.«  v  -i^^, 

"  He  about  this  time  married  the  daughter  of  a  shlpbmldei 
of  that  city,  but  the  union  was  unhappy.  Mr  Girar^ 
applied  for  a  divorce,  and  his  Wrfe  ultimately  died  insane 
in  a  public  hospital "  (American  Cyclopedia). 

-He  was  very  eccentric  in  hia  habits,  a  free  tWnker 
ungracious  in  manner,  ill-tempered,  and  lived  and  died 
without  a  friend  "  (Johnson's  Universal  Cyclopedia). 

'•You  have  no  grounds  for  insinuating  that  Paine  lived 
Improperly  with  Mrs.  BonnneviUe  "  (D.  M.  B.). 
,  -Mr.  Paine  was  godfather  to  one  of  the  others,  whc 
had  been  named  after  him"  (Vale's  Life  of  Paine.  p.l4^ 

"  Thaam  has  the  features,  countenance,  and  temper  oc 
Paine  "  (€heith*m'i  Life  of  Pain*  P-  ^^ 


TOB  HUMPHRBT-BB27NBTT  DISCUSSION. 


267 


**  Goethe  was  not  an  immoral  man  **  (D«  M.  B.). 

"His  first  years  there  (in  Weimar)  were  spent  in  wild  and 
tumultuous  enjoyments,  in  which  'affairs  of  the  heart.'  it  is 
to  be  feared,  did  not  always  end  with  the  heart.  *  There  is 
not  a  woman  here,'  wrote  the  simple-hearted  Schiller  more 
lately,  *who  has  not  had  her  liaison.*  ...  A  relation 
with  Frau  von  Stein,  which  Goethe  had  long  maintained, 
was  now  broken  off,  but  the  poet  soon  formed  anotlier  with 
Christine  Yulpius.  She  was  uneducated,  and  lived  in  some 
domestic  capacity  in  his  house;  but  in  spite  of  the  enormous 
scandal  which  the  new  tie  occasioned  even  in  Weimar, 
Goethe  afterwards  married  her  to  legitimate  his  son " 
(American  Cyclopedia). 

"  Shelley  was  not  guilty  of  wrong  in  leaving  his  wife ; 
nor  was  he  dissolute  "  (D.  M.  B.). 

**  Toward  the  close  of  1813  the  estrangement  which  had 
been  slowly  growing  between  him  and  his  wife  resulted  in 
their  separation,  and  she  returned  to  her  father's  house, 
where  she  gave  birth  to  a  second  child.  .  •  .  He  was 
soon  after  traveling  abroad  with  Mary,  afterwards  the  second 
Mrs.  Shelley,  daughter  of  William  Godwin  and  Mary  WoU- 
stonecraft,  all  of  whom  deemed  marriage  a  iLsdese  institution. 

.  .  On  his  return  he  found  that  his  wife  had  drowned 
herself,  and  his  sorrows  are  said  to  have  made  him  for  a 
time  actually  mad,  and  as  such  he  describes  himself  in 
'Julian  and  Maddalo.'  He  now  married  his  second  wife. 
who  had  been  his  companion  for  two  years  "  (American  Cyclo- 
pedia). 

"  Chesterfield  did  not  seek  to  make  his  son  a  whoremas- 
ter"(D.  M.  B.). 

*'  Un  arrangement^  which  is,  in  plain  English,  a  gallantry, 
is,  in  Paris,  as  necessary  a  part  of  a  woman  of  fashion's 
establishment,  as  her  house,  stable,  coach,  etc.  A  young 
fellow  must  therefore  be  a  very  awkward  one,  to  be  reduced 
to,  or  of  a  very  singular  taste,  to  prefer  drabs  and  danger  to 
a  commerce  (in  the  course  of  the  world  not  disgraceful) 


r] 

;  I 


ran  HiniFHBVT-BSNNETT  Dieoustxov. 


m 


if 

II 


with  a  woman  of  health,  educadon,  and  rank"  (Ohester- 
fleld-B  Letters  to  his  Son.  Letter  227). 
"John  Btuart  Mill  sustained  a  character  too  pure  for  you 

to  besmirch  "  (B.  M.  B.). 

I  only  said,  and  I  again  repeat,  that  a  minister's  name 
would  be  tarnished  or  "besmirched  "  were  hs  to  do  as  Mill 
did  with  another  man's  wife.    Let  me  quote  Mr.  Mill :  "  At 
this  period  she  lived  mostly  with  one  young  daughter,  in  a 
quiet  part  of  the  country,  and  only  occasionally  in  town, 
with  her  first  husband,  Mr.  Taylor.    I  visited  her  equdUy  in 
loth  places;  and  vfos  ffreaUy  indebted  to  the  strength  of  charac- 
tor  ioMeh  enabled  her  to  disregard  the  false  interpretations  liable 
to  be  put  on  the  frequency  of  my  visits  to  her  vshUe  living  gerwr- 
aUy  apart  from  Mr,  Taylor,  and  on  our  occasionally  traveling 
together,  though  in  all  other  respects  our  conduct  during 
those  years  gave  not  the  slightest  ground  for  any  other  sup- 
position than  the  true  one,  that  our  relation  to  each  other  at  that 
time  was  one  of  strong  affection  and  confidential  intimacy  only, 
^W  (hough  we  did  not  consider  the  ordinances  cf  satiety  binding 
on  a  sul^  so  entirely  personal,  we  did  feel  bound  that  our 
conduct  should  be  such  as  in  no  degree  to  bring  discredit^ 
on  her  husband,  nor  therefore  on  herself*  (Autobiography, 
N.  Y.,  1875.  pp.  186,  229.)    Thtre  is  Mr.  Mill's  word  for  it. 
I  am  willing  to  accept  it.    But  I  am  sure  that  If  a  bishop 
were  to  follow  his  example,  the  Infidels  especially  would 
wink,  and  Insinuate,  and  put  their  mouths  in  position  to 
Bay  "lecherous.** 
"  Rousseau  was  an  upright,  well-disposed  man"  (D.  M.  B.). 

Whew  I  That  assertion  needs  no  quotation  to  disprore 
it  No  wonder  you  could  flatter  the  Devil  In  one  of  your 
preceding  letters.  If  Rousseau  was  moral,  immorality 
is  an  Impossibility ;  and  you  should  not  be  so  Inconsistent 
as  to  condemn  "  clerical  beasts  "  any  more. 

I  have  entered  Into  these  details  In  order  to  vindicate  my 
former  statements,  and  to  show  the  reader  how  scrupulous 
yon  ara  about  hlatorical  truth  I    I  have  quoted  largely  from 


TUB  KUXFHBBT-BBEEKSrr  DlflCUsaiOir. 

the  New  American  Cyclopedia,  partly  because  It  is  unsec- 
tarlan,  and  far  from  partial  to  Protestantism  and  Orthodoxy, 
but  chiefly  because  you  have  expressed  your  acceptance  of 
it  as  high  and  unquestioned  authority  (Reply  No.  lii). 

I  have  been  traclug  some  of  your  references.    You  point 
to  several  Scriptural  passages  in  evidence  that  the  Jews 
"  ate  human  flesh."    Do  you  by  this  mean  that  they  were 
cannibals  f    Your  language  is  framed  so  cunningly  that  it 
at  the  same  time  conveys  this  impression,  and  leaves  you  a 
loop-hole  in  case  of  exposure.    Well,  I  will  have  to  force 
you  into  the  loop-hole.    Deut.  xxviii,  47-^8;  Lam.  iv.  10; 
and  Bar.  ii,  8  do  not  at  all  refer  to  the  ordinary  customs  of 
the  Hebrews,  but  to  the  last  desperate  resort  of  a  people 
dying  with  famine.    Ez.  xxxix,  18,  does  not  speak  of 
human  beings  as  "eating  the  flesh  of  the  mighty  and 
drinking  the  blood  of  the  princes  of  the  earth."    In  the 
preceding  verse  we  are  explicitly  told  that  this  was  done  by 
"  every  feallieredfowV  and  by  ''every  beast  of  the  field.'*    Let 
the  reader  examine  these  passages  carefully  and  he  cannot 
fail  to  see  that  you  have  tried  to  play  a  trick  on  him.    All 
your  other  Scriptural  comments  are  about  as  critical  and 
accurate  as  this  one. 

I  have  also  examined  Thiers,  and  Chambers*  Cyclopedia, 
but  I  found  no  evidence  whatever  that  Robespierre  was  a 
Christian.    As  your  generosity  has  recently  placed  Paine'a 
works  in  Cooper  Institute,  in  order  that  you  may  be  able  to 
say  they  are  there,  so,  I  am  afraid,  your  jaundiced  imagin- 
ation  sometimes  reads  things  into  authorities  which  they  do 
not  really  contain.    I  have  taken  considerable  pains  to  ex- 
amine Thiers*  History  of  the  French  Revolution;  Carat's 
Memoirs  of  the  Revolution;  Lamartine's  History  of  tiie 
Girondists;  and  especially  Lewes*  Life  of  Robespierre,  and 
I  find  that  Robespierre  was  simply  a  Deist;  that  his  mode 
of  thought  was  moulded  by  Rousseau's  philosophy;   and 
that  his  coadjutors  were  avowed  Infidels.    It  Is  true  some 
of  the  Atheists  sneered  at  him  as  a  lund  of  religionist,  be- 


ii 


JTO  THl  HUMFHBMT-BIHKBTT  DIBCTJ88IOK. 

cause  he  belieyed  in  the  Being  of  God.  But  that  docs  not 
prove  your  allegation.  For  the  same  reason  Paine  became 
unpopular  with  the  very  same  class  of  people.  And  it  had 
been  said  long  before  that  even  Voltaire  was  -retrograde." 
"superstitious,"  and  a  " bigot,"  because  he  was  a  Peist 

(Morley's  Voltaire,  p.  W).  «  .^  „ 

You.  too.  can  play  "fast  and  loose"  with  Catholic 
authorities.  While  you  would  scornfully  reject  their  testi- 
mony  about  skeptics,  you  can  accept,  with  smacking  gusto, 
Iheir  most  spiteful  mirepresentations  of  the  life  and  death 
of  Luther  and  Calvin, 

It  is  quite  likely  that  some  Infidels  have  *'  died  as  the 
fool  dieth,"  with  stolid  unconcern.    But  it  is  on  record  that 
many  of  them  approached  death  with  fear  and  trembling. 
There  is  good  evidence  that  Voltaire  died  whining  for  a 
Catholic  priest,  and  that  Hobbes  contemplated  "  the  inevi- 
table "  with  terrible  trepidation  (Condorcet's  Life  of  Vol- 
taire; Thomas*   Dictionary   of  Biography;  Blackburne'a 
Life  of  Hobbes;  Hume's  History  of  England,  new  ed.. 
London,  1864,  vol.  v.  p.  97>.    A  conscientious  hiatorian 
says  that  Robespierre  and  his  fellows,  when  besieged  m  the 
Hotel  de  Villo.  writhed  like  a  knot  of  snakes  encircled  by 
fire.    Henriot  was  drunk.    Las  Basas  despatched  himself 
wiih  a  pistol.    Couthon  cut  ghastly  gashes  in  his  bosom, 
but  lacked  courage  to  drive  the  knife  to  his  heart.    Robes- 
Pierre  made  an  attempt  to  shoot  himself,  but  succeeded  only 
in  breaking  his  jaw.    St.  Just  begged  his  comrades  to  kill 
him  (Scott's  Life  of  Napoleon  Buonaparte,  vol.  i,  chap. 

xvii). 

It  is  nobler,  like  Hamlet,  to  meditate  on  death  in  a  aeri- 
ous  vein,  than  to  breathe  the  last,  like  Hume,  with  a  deck 
of  cards  in  his  hands.  But  who,  except  a  true  Christian, 
can  die  with  the  serene  assurance  of  Bt.  Paul,  and  say:  "  I 
am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my  departure 
18  at  hand.  I  have  fought  a  good  fight.  I  have  finished  my 
course.  I  hsve  kepi  the  faithj  henoef^h  there  is  laid  up 


~-i- '-.-. 


*■»  RincPBRxr-BKinnn  Discnssiou.  271 

for  me  •  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord    the 
righteong  Judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day  "  (3  Tim,  Iv,  'e-*)? 
I  might  as  well  improve  this  opportunity,  onM  for  all 
to  say  a  word  about  Calvin  and  Servetus.    Everybody  i« 
familiar  with  these  two  names.    Callow  striplings   that 
never  saw  a  Life  of  Calvin,  far  less  read  one,  are  able  to 
articulate  the  three  words:  "  Calvin  burned  Servetus  "   fe. 
ttorami  that  can  hardly  tell  the  difference  between  Calvin- 
ism  and  Galvanism,  somehow  manage  to  say,  with  aknowiair 
rir:     Calvin  burned  Servetus."    The  sectarian  hater  of 
Calvinism;  the  Catholic  hater  of  Protestantism;  and  the 
Infldel  hater  of  Christianity,  can  stand  side  by  side  and 
chant  together:  "Calvin  burned  Servetus."    Againsaver 
cornered,  squelched,  and  extinguished  in  controversy  can 
My  that  much,  anyhow:  "Well,  CWvin  burned  Servetus  " 
Wow  I  am  prepared  to  say,  and  I  hereby  say  deliberately, 
that  Calvin  did  not  Boas  Sbbvktosj  nbithbe  did  m 
C0N8EIT  TO  ma  BtJBNnfo  bt  othkbs.    The/acft  about  that 
sad  afiair  were  these: 

J:^TV^  '*"*'"''  '°  PnnfaWng  Incorrigible  hereUcs 
With  death. 

1  Servetus  himself,  and  hi.  follower,  Socinus,  cherUhed 
the  same  belief. 

8.  C^vin  instigated  the  arrest  of  Servetus.  and  furnished 
tue  evidence  against  him  in  the  trial. 

4.  The  authority  that  pronounced  the  sentence  on  Serve- 
tus  was  vested  in  the  Senate  of  Geneva. 

6  Calvin  exerted  all  his  influence  to  secure  s  modification 
of  the  sentence  from  burning  to  death  by  the  sword 

It  18  true,  this  bears  a  most  painful  resemblance  to  the 
humanen^  of  the  French  Infidels,  when  they  discontinued 
the  use  of  the  awkward  axe,  and  proceeded  to  choo  each 
other  8  head,  off  with  the  more  graceful  guillotine.  Never- 
theless, let  the  truth  be  said,  even  of  John  Calvin. 

6  That  age  gave  a  general  endorsement  to  the  execution 
of  Servetus    The  cwiton.  of  Berne,  Zurich.  B.,e,  an,! 


f !      •  I 


I 


i7f 


THB  BPMPHREY-BBNWBTT  DI8CUSSI0H. 


.1 


•Il 


1 


'C 


Schaffhausen  concurred  la  the  wsUon  of  Genev*.  Melanc 
thoa  Beza,  Farel.  Bacer.  Oecolampadios,  ZuingU,  Vlret, 
Peter  Martyr.  Bullioger,  Torretin,  and  the  cotemporaneous 
theologians  and  sUtesmen  generally  approved  of  it. 

This  was  confessedly  a  dark  spot  on  the  character  of 
Calvin.  But  he  should  be  judged  in  the  light  of  his  own 
age  and  surroundings.  He  was  trained  a  Romanist;  and  it 
was  hard  for  him  to  shake  off  entirely  the  dregs  of  intoler- 
ance. Even  Draper  eays:  "He  was  animated,  not  by  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation,  but  by  those  of  Catholicism, 
from  which  he  had  not  been  able  to  emancipate  himself 
completely"  (Conflict  between  ReUgion  and  Science,  p. 
804).  Besides,  he  found  himself  in  Geneva  under  an  an- 
cient law  that  declared  heresy  a  capital  crime.  The  public 
opinion  sanctioned  that  law.  Aod  we  know  how  hard  it  is  for 
mortals  to  be  several  centuries  ahead  of  their  times.  Cal- 
vin*s  crime  was  the  crime  of  his  age;  but  I  admit  that  it  was 
a  crime  nevertheless. 

I  cannot  see  why  Presbyterians  should  suffer  reproach  on 
account  of  the  Calvin  and  ttervetua  affair  any  more  than 
other  denominations.  Calvin  was  no  part  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian  Church.  If  the  Westminster  divines  adopted,  to  a 
great  extent,  his  system  of  doctrines,  they  did  no  more  than 
the  Bapdsts,  and  the  earlier  EpiicopaUwia  and  Congrega- 

tionalists. 

The  iforld  should  not  forget  its  many  obligations  to  John 
Calvin.  Bancroft,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States, 
traces  the  germination  and  development  of  republican  prin- 
ciples to  his  system.  Froude  has  shown  that  "  Cal vinUm  " 
has  been  no  secondary  force  in  the  progress  of  civilization; 
and  he  has  testified  as  to  Calvin's  private  character,  that 
he  *'mads  irath,  ta  the  Imt  fibre  afU,  ih$  rtde  of  practical  life.'' 

There  are  extatt  ever  so  many  discussions  of  "Calvin 
and  Servetus."  But  no  one  has  been  just  to  the  memory  of 
Calvin  until  he  hat  seen  what  may  be  said  in  his  favor 
by  imOing  Btm\  Wat«mi»nX  McCrie't.  Mickenxie  •.  and 


m  HVlfFHRBT-BBITHBFr  DISCUSSION. 


37S 


efipecially  Henry's  Life  of  Calvin;  RiUiet's  Calvin  and  Ser- 
vetus;  Chauffpi4*s  article  on  Servctus  in  his  continuation  of 
Bayle*8  Dictionary;  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica;  Coleridge*8 
Table-Talk;  the  Biblical  Repertory,  vol.  viii,  pp.  74-96,  and 
the  Bibliothcca  Sacra,  vol.  iii.  pp.  51-94.  There  are  two 
sides  to  this  question;  and  no  conclusion  can  be  fair  .where 
both  sides  have  not  been  thoroughly  investigated. 

I  deny  that  Biot  is  accepted  by  the  be»t  scientists  and 
theologians  as  good  authority  on  Sir  Isaac  Newton.  David 
Brewster  contradicts  him  fltitly,  and  proves  conclusively 
that  Newton's  greatest  religious  works  were  thought  out  and 
written  before  the  temporary  cloud  passed  over  his  mind, 
(Life  of  Newton,  ch.  xvi,  Lynn^s  ed.) 

To  me  it  is  one  of  the  clearest  things  in  the  world  thfU 
Infidelity  is  of  a  disintegrating  character.    I  mean,  of 
course,  unmixed  Infidelity.    Many  Infidels  are  unconscious- 
ly restrained  by  the  internal  and  external  influences  of 
religion.    As  many  professed  Christians  are  worse  than 
their  principles,  so  many  professed  Infidels  are  better  than 
their  principles,  or,  rather,  non  principles.  Imagine  a  world 
of  universal  skepticism.    God  is  denied  or  ignored.    Where 
then    is  Moral    Obligation?    Will  you   say  that   society 
shall  declare  its  own  requirements,  by  enacting  laws  to 
direct  and  govern  itself  ?    But  what  right  has  society,  any 
more  than  a  body  of  bishops,  to  think  for  the  individual  ? 
Plainly  enough,  the  spirit  of  Infidelity  is  inimical  to  every 
thing  organic  among  men.    This  is  illustrated  by  palpable 
facts.    All  Infidels  are  making  an  onslaught  on  the  Church. 
The  Free-Love  Infidels  are  waging  war  on  the  Family. 
Atid  the  Communistic  Infidels  are  breathing  out  threaten- 
iags  and  slaughter  against  Civil  Government. 

So  you  think  Infidelity  is  consistent  with  Morality  1  You 
arc  then  far  in  * 'advance*'  of  some  of  your  predecessors, 
D*  Hoi  bach  grunted  under  the  burden  of  showing  that  Athe- 
ism furnished  the  strongest  motives  for  virtue  and  justice. 
Voltaire  requested  D'Alembert  and  Ooadorcet  not  to  talk 


'  ' 


f7i 


^■i  BirifPHBsr-jfsinfvrr  vncvrntim. 


Atheiim  in  the  hearing  of  his  lerraats,  giTing  ai  hii  reasoir 
thit  lie  "did  not  want  to  have  his  throat  cut  that  night "^ 
Bame  saya  that  **  Hobbes'  politics  are  fitted  only  to  pro- 
mote tyranny,  and  hi»  ethicM  0  encaurage  UeerUunutrnt "  (His- 
tory of  England,  toI.  ▼,  p.  W).  He  says  farther  in  one  of 
his  Essays:  "Disbelief  in  futurity  loosens  in  a  great  meas- 
vre  the  ties  of  morality,  and  may  be  supposed  for  that 
reason,  to  be  perniciona  to  the  peace  of  ciTil  society/' 
Bolingbroke  says:  "The  doctrine  of  rewards  andpunish- 
BtenU  in  a  future  stote,  has  so  great  a  tendency  to  enforce 
the  ci¥il  laws  and  to  restrain  the  vices  of  men,  that,  though 
reason  would  decide  againet  it  cm  the  principles  of  theologyr 
she  will  not  decide  against  it  on  the  principlea  of  good 
policy.  ...  No  religion  ever  appeared  in  the  world, 
whose  natural  tendency  was  so  much  directed  to  promote 
the  peace  and  happiness  of  mankind  as  the  Christian.  The 
Gospel  of  Christ  is  one  continual  lesson  of  the  strictest 
morality,  justice,  benevolence,  and  universal  charity." 

But  this  question  needa  no  baching  by  ^aotation^.  It 
stands  to  reason;  as  they  say,  that  a  man  who  thoroughly 
believes  in  a  €h>d  who  will  certainly  punish  iniquity,  an* 
as  certainly  reward  goodness,  will  be  more  moral  thaa 
another  one  who  has  no  God  to  fear  or  love;  no  Hell  to  shun,, 
no  Heaven  to  seek.  A  man  who  believes  that  he  is  only  a 
beast  is  quite  likely  to  live  like  a  beast. 

Let  us  now  consider  some  of  the  popular  objections  to 

Beiigion: 

1.  There  is  a  lurking  fallacy,  and  a  sly  begging  of  the 
question,  in  some  of  the  words  which  Infidels  are  very  fond 
of  using.  For  instance,  they  persist  in  speaking  of  the 
entire  clergy  of  Christendom  as  prUiU,  prieUhood,  and 
priestcraft.  They  ought  to  be  more  just  and  accurate. 
They  ought  to  know  that  the  great  body  of  Protestants  do 
not  regard  a  minister  as  a  priest  in  any  sense  different  from 
the.  lay  believer.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  distinct 
order  called  the  Priesthood,  under  the  Oospcl  Dispenfialion, 


'.• 


TBB  HUMPaBBT-BWIHETT  DI8GUflai0»>. 


27^ 


(Hodge's  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  iii,  p.  e8».)  The  Infi- 
del use  of  these  words  is  only  an  unfair  attempt  to  cover 
Protestantism  with  the  odium  that  is  associated  with  Ro- 
manism. 

It  is  frequently  assumed  that  "common  sense  "  is  all  on 
the  side  of  unbelief.  This  is  both  gratuitous  and  egotistic. 
As  Huxley  says,  common  ignorance  passes  very  often  by  the 
more  deceiving  name  of  Common  liense  (Lay  Sermons,  p. 
830).  There  is  not  a  book  in  the  world  that  contains  as 
much  "common  sense  "  as  the  Bible. 

What  self-complacency  there  is  in  the  skeptic's  use  of  the 
word  "Liberalism"!  It  takes  for  granted  what  does  not 
exist  in  fact,  viz.,  that  Infidels  are  more  truly  liberal  than 
Christians.  What  is  popularly  called  "Liberalism"  is 
really  an  unwritten  creed,  which  runs  about  as  follows: 

Art.  L  Every  individual  is  the  smartest  fellow  in  the 
world. 

Art.  IL  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  anything  and  everything 
may  possibly  be  true,  provided  always  orthodoxy  is  ex- 
cluded from  this  supposition. 

Art.  III.  It  makes  no  difference  what  you  believe  or  do — 
youUl  fetch  up  all  right. 

How  much  superior  to  all  this  is  the  Liberalism  of  the 
Kew  Testament:  "Be  kindly  affectioned  one  to  anotlier 
with  brotherly  love;  in  honor  preferring  one  another"  (Roni. 
xii,  10).  "  Brethren,  ye  have  been  called  unto  liberty;  only 
use  not  liberty  for  an  occasion  to  the  flesh,  but  by  love 
serve  one  another"  (Gal.  v,  18). 

Similar  things  may  be  said  of  the  words  "  Freethought," 
and  '*  Freethinker."  The  Infidel  is  not  more /re«  as  a 
thinker  than  his  religious  neighbor.  For  one,  I  can  testify 
that  my  mind  enjoys  unbounded  freedom.  I  think  exactly 
as  I  please.  FreetJtougUl  That  is  certainly  a  high-sounding 
name.  But  we  should  remember  that  great  names  are  fre- 
quently given  to  very  insignificant  concerns.  You  will 
'^f  ten  see  a  low  corner  grogshop  dubbed  "  London  H  jusc,  " 


TBB  auMPHBwr-Biinfwrr  DiscuaeioN. 

or  •'  PariB  Hotel."  But  it  is  a  low  comer  grogshop  after  all. 
It  is  80  with  Infidelity.  It  may  style  itself  "  Freetbougbt, 
••  Liberalism.-  "Progress,"  and  all  that;  but  its  true  char- 
acter  will  still  remain  the  same.  In  the  language  of  Prof. 
Huxley.  "  many  a  spirited  freethinker  makes  use  of  his  free- 
dom  mainly  to  vent  nonsense  "  (Lay  Ser.,  p.  62).  From  the 
way  many  Infidels  stagger  through  History,  bungle  Philoso- 
phy,  and  blunder  over  Scripture,  I  should  say  that  Freetinkcr 
would  be  a  more  appropriate  term  than  -  Freethinker. 

How  often  it  Is  assumed  that  if  a  man  is  a  mnker,  he  is 
sure  to  bean  unbeliever.    When  we  remember  that  such 
men  as  Columbus,  Descartes,  Locke.  Blackstone,  Milton, 
Bacon,  Cuvier,  Newton,  Kepler.  Brahe  ^^^l'^^^'^^! 
Brewster.  Burke.  Faraday.  Herschel,  Morse,  Mitchell.  Gui- 
^ot    Handel,  Haydn,  Rawlinson.  Chalmers,  Agassiz.  etc., 
etc*  etc.,  were  firm  believers  in  the  Christian  Religion,  this 
a<sJmptlon  is  at  once  ridiculous  and  contemptible.    There 
arc  ever  so  many  -  Bages  "  and  -  Thinkers  "  who  are  not 
"Infidels;"  and  there  are  hosto  of  Infidels  who  are  neither 
"  Sages  "  nor  "  Thinkers."    It  might  be  well  for  some  peo- 
pie  to  keep  in  mind  that  long  hair,  weird  looks,  spectacles, 
funny  clothes,  and  other  eccentricities.  aU  put  on.  do  not. 
foso  facto,  constitute  a  Udnktr. 

i  It  is  sometimes  objected  to  ReUgion  that  it  makes  pec 
pie  insane.  But  is  this  a  sound  argument  ?  Is  it  applied 
to  anything  else  ?  News,  good  and  bad,  have  caused  some 
lo  lose  their  minds.  Should  newspapers,  telegraph  com- 
panics,  and  all  post-offices,  be  suppressed  on  that  account  ? 
Disappointment  in  love  has  made  many  a  bonnie  lass  and 
siKhing  swain  crazy.  Daes  it  follow  that  courtship  should 
be  dicountenanced  the  world  overt  Financial  embarras- 
ments  have  overwhelmed  the  mind  of  many  an  enterprising 

merchant.  Does  that  prove  that  ^««i^^««'f™,^^^\^t 
money  should  be  banished  from  the  earth  t  Childbirth  is 
often  followed  by  derangement.  May  we  thence  argue  that 
marriage  is  dishonorable  in  all?  It  is  probable  that  Newton  f 


nn  HUXPHRST-BBNNBTT  DISCUSBIOK. 


277 


temporary  aberration  of  mind  was  caused  by  the  intensity 
of  his  scientific  studies.  May  we  therefore  conclude 
that  scientific  investigation  should  be  discouraged  ?  Every- 
body will  answer.  No.  Then,  on  the  same  ground  precisely, 
I  will  answer  No,  in  behalf  of  Religion. 

But  why  is  this  argument  not  passed  around  f  Why  not 
insist  that  Spiritualism  is  a  very  bad  thing,  since  it  sent 
even  the  strong-minded  Robert  Dale  Owen  into  the  insane 
Asylum  ?  George  Francis  Train  is  either  a  lunatic  because 
he  is  an  Infidel,  or  else  he  is  an  Infidel  because  he  is  a  lun- 
atic. Why  not  blazon  this  as  a  knock-down  argument 
against  Infidelity  ?  Intemperance  has  made  a  thousand 
crazy,  where  religious  excesses  have  made  one.  Why  is  it 
that  Infidel  journals  do  not  use  this  fact  as  the  ground  of  a 
thundering  appeal  against  the  Liquor  Traffic  T  It  is  all  be- 
cause they  will  not  turn  their  style  of  caviling  against 
Christianity  against  anything  else.  It  is  because  they  are 
given  to  straining  out  religious  gnats,  while  they  can  swal- 
low irreligious  camels. 

8.  Some  people,  and  some  very  intelligent  people,  say 
they  cannot  determine  anything  about  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion, because  of  the  multiplicity  of  sects.  Now,  it  is  too 
true  that  there  are  far  more  denominations  than  are  neces- 
sary. Divisions  have  subdivided  until  the  sections  are  very 
numerous.  But  the  *'  Freethinker  "  should  be  the  last  man 
to  find  fault  with  this.  It  is  the  result  of  the  liberty  which 
Protestantism  vouchsafes  to  every  man,  and  body  of  men, 
to  think  and  act  as  they  see  fit.  Thus  a  place  is  furnished 
for  almost  every  variety  of  taste  and  opinion.  As  to  the 
vital  difference  between  these  denominations,  it  is  not  so 
very  great,  after  all.  The  Evangelical  Alliance  could  meet 
on  a  common  basis.  And  it  is  the  united  voice  of  Prot- 
estant Christendom  that  that  basis  contains  all  the  essentials, 
the  saving  truths,  of  Christianity.  The  distinguishing 
marks  are  non-essential— matters  of  taste,  education,  local 
and  historical  attachments. 


I 


198 


im  UUMFEIIXT  •  BBmfXTT  -IMlHCiO'lMQIlli 


THE  BTOlCrHBET-BBNNETT  DISCTJasiOW. 


279 


Bat  let  us  admit  that  the  variety  of  secla  and  denomina- 
tions is  perplexing  and  bewildering.  I  will  still  claim  that 
the  denial  or  ignoring  of  religion  on  that  accouot  is  unrea- 
sonable, and  contrary  to  human  practice  in  other  respects. 
The  world  has  a  great  many  different  forms  of  goyermnent— 
Empires,  Kingdoms,  and  Republics.  Will  any  intelligent 
man  use  this  as  an  excase  for  refusing  citizenship  anywhere  f 
Let  us  be  thankful  that  our  country  actually  swarms  with 
most  amiable  and  excellent  young  ladies  and  gentlemen. 
Do  any  of  them  put  matrimony  out  of  the  question,  on 
account  of  the  wide  room  for  choice  ?  Would  an  emigrant 
refuse  to  settle  in  any  part  of  America,  simply  because  there 
are  so  many  States  and  Territories  t  Would  a  traveler 
refuse  to  go  to  any  hotel,  and  sleep  out  doors,  because  ho 
was  met  by  so  many  contending  runners  at  the  depot  ?  Do 
our  talented  young  men  decline  going  to  any  college  or 
university,  because  there  are  so  many  colleges  and  universi- 
ties f  What  are  our  political  parties  but  political  sects  f 
How  many  American  citizens  are  there  who  make  the 
variety  of  parties  a  reason  for  identifying  themselves  with 
no  party  ?  Should  the  fabled  ass  that  starved  between  two 
bundles  of  hay,  because  he  could  not  determine  which  was 
the  best,  so  that  he  might  eat  it  first,  be  the  model  of  rea- 
sonable men! 

Such  qneations  as  these  answer  themselves.  They  show 
that  the  objection  to  Religion,  now  under  consideration,  is 
more  of  an  excuse  than  anything  else.  But  where  is  a  man 
to  flee  to  get  rid  of  tiiis  excuse  ?  Certainly  not  to  Infidel- 
ity ;  for  sectarianism  prevails  even  there.  He  will  there  be 
stunned  by  the  conflicting  clamors  of  Deism,  Atheism, 
Pantheism,  Materialism,  Spiritualism,  Free-Loveism,  Com- 
munism, and  a  hundred  Nondescriptisms.  Nothing  can 
be  better  and  easier  for  him  than  to  study  the  cardinal  truths 
of  the  Divine  Book,  absorb  them  into  the  very  marrow  and 
fibres  of  his  being,  enter  the  Master's  great  Tineyard,  and 
work  at  the  row  of  vines  he  may  choose. 


4.  But  the  commonest  objection  of  all  to  the  Christian 
Religion  is  the  inconsistencies  of  many  who  profess  it.  Thia 
objection  is  as  oW  as  Sin  and  Sophistry.  And  it  is  still 
full  of  life  and  vigor.  It  lives  on  in  deflanceof  logic,  good 
flense,  aad  consistency.  You  have  gone  to  the  trouble  of 
furnishing  quite  a  list  of  fallen  ministers.  Doubtless  some 
of  your  sympathizers  will  mistake  this  list  for -reasoning. 
They  will  probably  keep  it  as  an  Infidel  reference  bible. 
Tery  likely  they  will  learn  some  of  it  by  heart  It  fur- 
nishes them  with  a  great  supply  of  cartridges— blank, 
every  one  of  them.  What  a  sweet  scrap-book  you  must 
liave  had  t  You  have  certainly  been  a  diligent  gleaner  on 
the  fields  of  the  "  Police  Gazettes";  and  now  you  come  to  the 
threshing-floor  with  your  blasted  sheaves.  But  you  forgot 
the  case  of  the  "confidence  game"  man,  who,  the  other 
day,  donned  a  clerical  suit,  and  was  thereby  enabled  to 
-**  borrow  "  quite  a  sum  of  money  from  a  rustic.  He  was  a 
capital  Illustration  of  the  prine^  you  try  to  bring  out 
The  apostates  whom  you  mention  were  only  social  and 
moral  "  confidence  game "  men.  The  Bible  and  Chris- 
tianity are  no  mere  responsible  for  them  than  the  Consti- 
iution  and  the  good  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  culpable 
lor  the  existence  among  them  of  the<5riminal  dasses. 

I  have  no  incUnation  to  doubt  that  your  sketches  of  the 
disguised  wolves  are  in  the  main  correct.  I  offer  no  apology 
for  those  who  were  guilty.  I  wiU  say  of  the  Protestants  that 
have  transgressed,  and  died  in  their  sins,  as  Moehler,  the 
great  Catholic  controversialist,  said  of  the  "priests,  bish- 
ops.  and  popes,  whose  scandalous  conduct  and  lives  extin- 
guished the  still  glimmering  torch,  which  they  ought  to 
have  kindled:  HeH  hath  swallowed  them  up »' (Symbolism. 
Robertston's  trans.,  Sd  ed.,  p.  270).  But  in  your  ventilation 
of  this  matter  you  reveal  a  spiteful  spirit,  and  a  readiness  to 
make  unwarrantable  assertions.  You  are  not  careful  to 
mention  all  the  cases  that  have  been  deposed.  You  give 
Mome  names  Ueice,  in  order  to  swell  your  list  You  expatiate 


1; 

i4 


y\ 


TOE  BinCPHRIT-BlimSTT  DOCUBSIOIC 


on  the  doings  of  indiyidaah  whose  names  you  can  not  or 
dare  not  produce.  Ton  accuse  others  merely  because  gos- 
sipers,  quaek-doetors,  and  possibly,  blackmailers,  have 
wagged  their  '*  f  roward  tongues  '*  against  them.  Tea,  you 
liaTO  been  so  unjust,  and  illegal,  to  say  nothing  o£  illiberal, 
as  to  assume  that  many  are  guilty  agunst  whom  a  whisper 
has  never  gone  forth. 

But  it  is  only  the  genuine  Christian  that  can  consistently 
condemn  such  irreligious  and  ujichristian  characters  as  you 
have  mentioned.  It  was  against  the  Bible  most  of  all  that 
Ihey  sinned.  Their  conduct  was  quite  in  harmony  with  the 
teachings  of  prominent  Infidels.  Those  who  committed 
niicide  were  only  doing  what  Hume  and  D*Holbach  pro- 
nounced net  only  justifiable,  but  brave  and  noble.  Those 
who  appropriated  to  themselves,  without  leave,  the  prop- 
erty—or, as  the  Infidel  Proudhon  would  call  it,  the  "rob- 
Ibery  '*— of  others,  were  only  making  a  private  application  of 
that  growing  child  of  "  Freethought,*'  namely.  Communism. 
The  adulterers  and  whoremongers  were  nothing  more  than 
Free-Lovers  in  disguise.  li  wot  ths  praetUe  of  Infidel  doe- 
trinea  Hud  nmde  tliem  tohta  they  igere. 

But  will  you  say,  as  Mrs.  Woodhull  said  of  Beecher,  that 
their  sin  consisted  chiefly  in  their  hjfpoerieyf  According  to 
the  Scriptures,  hypocrisy  is  a  damnable  sin.  But  I  have 
shown  in  my  last  that  the  skeptical  Hume  recommended, 
and  that  Toland,  Paine  and  Voltaire  practiced  dissimulation 
and  duplicity.  To  them  may  be  added  Simon  Magus— whom 
you  have  hung  up  in  your  gallery  of  Infidels— lying,  and 
uniting  with  the  Apostolic  Church  with  the  expectation  of 
receiving  thereby  extraordinary  powers  (Acts  viii,  ^24) ;  Col- 
lins and  Shaftesbury  partaking  of  the  Sacrament  in  order  to 
qualify  themselves  for  civil  office;  and  Hobbes  clinging  to 
the  Anglican  Church,  though  he  hated  its  doctrines.  By  your 
ahowing— which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  incorrect— President 
WUte  is  a  hypocrite,  sanctioning  and  participating  in  daily 
prajera— only  to  "  cat«r  *'  to  reUgious  young  men  I    O  Mr. 


THB  HUMPHRST-BBNNSTT  XIIB0U88ION. 


281 


.  J 


Bennett,  Mr.  Bennett,  where  is  consistency  t  If  suicide, 
dishonesty,  licentiousness,  and  hypocrisy  are  wrong  in 
clergymen— and  they  are  eternally  so— they  are  also  wrong 
in  all  men.  But  where  did  you  learn  that  these  things  are 
unlawful?  Was  it  from  Hume's  Essay  on  Suicide  ?  Was  it 
from  the  utterances  of  Free-Love  Conventions  ?  Was  it 
from  the  ring-leaders  of  Communism  f  No,  dear  friend:  it 
was  from  the  blessed  old  Bible  which  you  despise,  and 
which  your  batch  of  disgraced  clergymen  have  disobeyed. 

It  seems  that  you  have  given  us  some  of  the  advance 
sheets  of  your  forth-coming  "  Champions  of  the  Church," 
which  you  took  occasion  to  advertise.  I  have  seen  your 
prospectus,  and  found  that  those  whom  you  have  selected 
for  '*  Champions  "  are,  with  very  few  exceptions,  divisible 
into  two  classes:  1st.  Those  who  were  no  champions  at  all; 
and  2nd.  Those  who  were  champions  only  in  evil  doing.  I 
hope  you  will  proceed  to  give  us,  on  ths  same  prindjpHe,  a  vol- 
ume entitled  "Champions  of  the  American  Republic,"  con- 
taining exclusively  sketches  of  Benedict  Arnold,  Aaron 
Burr,  Preston  S.  Brooks,  John  B.  Floyd,  Jefferson  Davis, 
Mrs.  Surratt,  J.  Wilkes  Booth,  Raphael  Semmes,  Oakes 
Ames,  James  Fisk  Jr.,  Wm.  M.  Tweed,  John  Morrissey, 
Brigham  Young,  Tom  Thumb,  Justus  Schwab,  Joseph 
Coburn,  and  the  like.  If  your  method  is  fair  in  religious 
it  is  fair  in  political  history. 

Ministers,  as  a  class,  are  good  men.  Of  course,  there  are 
exceptions  among  them;  but  exceptions  never  disprove  a 
rule.  When  we  remember  that  there  are  between  seventy 
and  a  hundred  thousand  ministers  in  the  United  States,  it 
is  a  marvel  that  far  more  of  them  do  not  prove  to  be  wolves 
in  sheep^s  clothing. 

There  are  two  reasons  why  the  sins  of  a  minister  at- 
tract unusual  attention  :  First,  the  height  of  his  station 
gives  special  conspicuousness  to  his  downfall.  Impropriety 
in  one  clergyman  will  elicit  more  remarks  than  greater  im* 
moralitiea  in  a  hundred  moa  of  tho  wotld,    "  Irregularities  " 


VBB  nmEPflBonr-BSHNSTT  DiscnsnoN 


mm  HtniPHRBY-BEKNBTT  DISCtlSSIOH. 


283 


in  the  latter  are  taken  almost  as  matters  of  course;  and  very 
little  is  said  about  them.  I  would  not  have  it  otherwise  as 
regards  the  clergy.  They  should  be  holy  men.  If  they  sin 
against  God,  and  forget  th«ir  a^ful  responsibilities,  they 
deserve  to  feel  the  keenest  edge  of  disgrace  and  remorse. 

Another  reason  for  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
men  do  not  generally  speak  of  the  sins  of  ministers  and  those 
of  other  people  in  the  same  terms.  Dishonesty  makes  a 
preacher  a  thief  outright ~ as  it  ought  to;  but  it  only 
makes  an  irreligious  man  a  little  **  crooked,"  but  •*  mighty 
smart."  A  violation  of  the  Seventh  Commandment  in  a 
church-member  is  adultery,  fornication,  lechery,  and  whore- 
dom ;  but  in  an  unbeliever  it  is  only  a  ** liaison,^*  "tin 
anangement^^^  "a  gallanlry,"  "peccadillo,**  "mistake," 
and  "  something  not  menial."  This  manner  of  selecting 
words  misleads  many  into  the  belief  that  sin  is  really  sinful 
only  in  a  religious  teacher. 

There  are  two  reasons  why  your  catalogue  of  hypocrites 
makes  nothing  against  the  Christian  Religion.  The  first  is 
the  fact  that  the  Bible  does  not  sanction,  far  less  command, 
▼ice  and  sin.  It  was  because  they  dUoheyed  the  Scriptures 
that  those  whom  you  have  named,  fell.  There  is  no  book 
in  the  world  that  speaks  so  severely  of  the  anfaithful  minis- 
ter as  the  Word  of  God.  For  examples  of  this,  read  Zepb. 
lii ;  Mic.  iii,  8-12;  Mai.  ii,  and  many  other  places.  To  see 
%hat  a  minister  is  required  to  he,  read  1  Tim.  ch.  iii. 

The  second  reason  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  Church  has 
neUher  tolerated  nor  connived  at  the  sins  of  its  Judas  Iscar- 
iots  and  Ananiases.  By  your  own  showing,  conviction  of 
iniquity  has  invariably  been  followed  by  expulsion.  What 
more,  what  better,  could  the  Church  do  r  The  glaring  fact 
that  the  Bible  condemns  uncompromisingly,  and  prohibits 
emphatically  and  repeatedly,  not  only  evil,  bui"aU  appear- 
ance of  evil,**  and  the  other  fact  that  the  Church,  as  rapidly 
as  consistency  with  Justice  and  fair  trials  will  permit,  de- 
poses, excoDununicates,  and  disowns,  such  of  her  meni' 


bers  and  teachers  as  reveal  wicked  hearts  by  tangible  acts, 
effectually  shield  Christianity  against  your  imputations. 

Infidelity  has  nothing  to  compare  with  this.  It  possesses 
and  recognises  no  authoritative  Statute-Book  which  says  : 
^'Thou  Shalt  not  kill.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 
Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness 
•gainst  thy  neighbor.**  It  admits  of  no  supreme  standard 
of  right  and  wron^g.  Neither  does  it  know  aught  of  such 
a  thing  as  discipline.  It  owns  and  acknowledges  as  teachers 
such  men  as  Bolingbroke,  Rousseau,  Voltaire,  whose  pri- 
vate characters  were  an  abomination— owns  them,  though 
tiiey  professed  no  repentance,  but  rather  justified  their 
loathsome  practices. 

Your  reasoning — if  such  it  may  be  called — amounts  to 
this :  Tlunt  incon»isie'ney  toith^  and  violation  of,  any  given  prin- 
ciples, are  a  proof  that  those  principles  are  in  tltemselves  bad. 
No  man  would  think  of  reasoning  in  that  way  about  any- 
thing on  earth  but  religion.  When  you  find  a  dishonest 
man,  do  you  scold  the  multiplication-table  f  Will  you 
point  to  the  pickpocket  and  the  burglar  as  evidences  that 
all  statutes  against  stealing  should  be  abolished  ?  Will  you 
endeavor  to  prove  by  the  fallen  women  that  the  law  of 
chastity  and  marital  fidelity  should  be  annulled  f  Do  you 
despise  genuine  money  because  it  is  counterfeited  ?  Do 
you  want  to  annihilate  doctors  and  drugstores  because 
disease  and  death  are  still  in  the  world  ?  Do  you  want 
to  dissolve  all  civil  governments  for  the  reason  that  so 
many  officeholders  are  corrupt?  Would  you  point  to 
Benedict  Arnold  afi  a  tjrpe  of  American  patriotism  ? 
Would  you,  if  required  to  show  specimens  of  American 
horses  to  a  company  of  foreign  equestrians,  take  them  to  a 
back  stable,  and  there  direct  their  eyes  to  some  scrawny, 
wheezing  creatures,  infected  and  disfigured  by  ringbone, 
founder,  spavin,  glanders,  and  epizootic  ?  Suppose — we 
may  suppose  anything  now^a-days— suppose  that  Science 
were  to  establish  Inteiplanetary  traveU  and  a  committee  of 


Wi 


SBB  SUllPaBXT-BBimXTT  DI9C1TSSIOir. 


THE  HXTMPHRET-BENNErT  DISCUSSION. 


285 


J^4 


JttiilteriaDS  were  to  make  joxx  a  Tisit  to  request  some  models 
of  terrestrial  beings  to  take  back  with  them— would  you 
go  to  the  Penitentiary  or  the  Lunatic  Asylum  to  select  the 
models  f  Do  you  despise  Liberty,  because — as  Madame 
Boland  said  a-dying— crimes  are  committed  in  its  name  ? 
You  will  say  a  thousand  times  No  to  these  questions. 
Then,  in  the  name  of  Sense  and  Consistency,  I  demand  that 
you  shall  give  just  the  same  answer  in  regard  to  the  Bible 
and  the  Christian  Church.  I  insist  that  we  are  to  judge  of 
the  principles  of  the  Scriptures  only  by  those  who  obey 
them. 

You  disparage  ministers  generally.  Yon  say  they  aro 
useless  and  unproductive.  But  you  said  that  with  your 
eyes  closed.  You  forgot  that  many  clergymen,  such  as 
Leyden  and  Priestley,  have  been  scientific  discoverera. 
You  forgot  that  nine-tenths  of  the  Chancellors  and  Presi- 
dents of  the  world's  Universities  and  Colleges  from  time 
immemorial  until  now,  have  been  ministers  of  the  Gospel. 
You  forgot  that  the  needy  and  distressed  in  every  village 
and  city  in  Christendom  go  most  hopefully  to  the  Christian 
pastor  for  sympathy  and  assistance.  You  forgot  that  a  vast 
uumber  of  our  best  Biographies,  Histories,  and  Cyclope- 
dias of  Art  and  Science,  are  the  works  of  clergymen. 

The  Ir^fiddi  are  more  truly  the  unproductive  class. 
Where  is  the  Hospital,  or  Benevolent  Institution  that  th^ 
liave  founded  and  supported  T  Where,  in  our  broad  land,  is 
the  Orphan  Asylum,  or  Home  for  the  Aged,  that  ihef  have 
endowed  r  What  are  ihep  doing  to  teach  the  rising  genera- 
tion to  love  Virtue,  Patriotism,  Righteousness,  and  Holi- 
ness T  What  great  ideas  have  theif  ever  given  to  the  world? 
In  the  language  of  Carlyle,  whom  you  have  called  a  **  Qiant 
Infidel,"  (?)  "What  Plough  or  Printing-Press,  what  Chivalry 
or  Christianity;  Day,  what  Steam-Engine,  or  Quakerism,  or 
Trial  by  Jury,  did  thete  EDcyclopedists  invent  for  mankind f 
They  invented  simply  nothing :  not  one  of  man's  virtues, 
not  one  of  Dtap's  powen,  is  due  to  them ;  in  nil  these  re- 


spects the  age  of  Louis  XT.  is  among  the  most  barren  of 
recorded  ages  "  (Essay  on  Voltaire). 

Pardon  the  length  of  my  letter.  I  could  not  review  your 
Beply,  and  expose  the  popular  sophistries  of  Infidelity,  in 
less  space.    Your  obedient  Servant, 

Q.  H.  HUMFHBET. 


MR.   BBHWBTT. 

Bey.  G.  H.  Huuphbet,  Dear  8vr:  Your  letter  No.  10 
contains  a  great  many  words,  displays  a  good  deal  of  inge- 
nuity, a  respectable  amount  of  skill  and  ability  in  quib- 
bling, evading,  and  dodging,  but,  candidly,  I  cannot  seo 
that  it  has  much  bearing  upon  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion. I  cannot  see  that  you  have  refuted  any  of  the 
arguments  I  have  advanced,  or  disproved  any  of  the  facts  I 
adduced.  With  all  respect  for  your  ability,  I  must  say,  you 
seem  to  me  more  like  a  shrewd  lawyer  who,  conscious  of  the 
weakness  of  his  case,  artfully  defends  it  with  sophistry  and 
clap-trap,  than  like  a  solid  reasoner,  who  is  firmly  con- 
vinced that  his  cause  is  founded  on  eternal  truth,  which 
needs  not  cunning  nor  sophistry  to  defend  it.  Permit  me  to 
remark,  that  I  think  you  have  the  faculty  of  proving  the 
most  from  the  least  amount  of  evidence  of  any  person  I 
remember  to  have  met. 

It  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  follow  you  through  your 
wild  meanderings  and  flounderings,  and  I  will  stop  only  to 
show  you  some  of  your  deficient  arguments,  and  how  en- 
tirely you  failed  to  rebut  my  assertions — for  instance,  I  said 
Oirard  did  not  make  his  wife  crazy.  To  refute  it  you  quote 
that  he  married  the  daughter  of  a  shipbuilder,  that  the  union 
was  unhappy,  that  he  was  eccentric,  ungracious  and  ill-tem- 
pered. Did  those  qualities  cause  his  wife's  insanity?  or 
did  lier  insanity  produce  those  qualities  in  him  ?    One  is  as 


.sv*- 


286 


THE  HUKPHRBT-BENI7STT  mSCUSSlOir. 


reasonable  as  the  other  1  Insanity  is  a  disease.  Glrard  waa 
no  more  responsible  for  any  disease  that  his  wife  waa 
afflicted  with  than  you  or  I  would  be  for  any  disease,  men- 
tal or  physical,  that  oar  wives  might  be  suffering  under. 

I  said  you  had  no  grounds  tu  insinuate  that  Paine  lived  in 
adultery  with  Madame  Bonneville.  To  refute  it  you  quote 
Yale  to  the*effect  that  one  of  her  children  was  named  after 
him,  and  that  he  was  godfather  to  another,  which  amounts 
to  just  no  refutation  at  all.  If  the  fact  that  one  of  Madame 
Bonneville's  children  was  named  after  Mr.  Paine  was  a 
proof  that  he  was  father  to  it,  what  a  great  number  of  ille^ 
gitimate  children  Franklin  and  Washington  must  have  been 
fathers  tot  Was  it  a  criminal  affair  in  Paine  that  the  child 
of  a  friend  should  bear  his  name  ?  Let  me  ask  you,  why  is 
it  that  you  are  so  much  more  inclined  to  condenm  Paine 
for  offenses  of  which  he  was  not  guilty,  than  you  are  to  try 
and  refute  his  arguments?  What  is  the  reason  for  your 
wishing  to  make  him  appear  worse  than  he  really  was  ? 
Do  you  not  And  it  easier  to  make  false  charges  than  to 
refute  solid  arguments  ?  What  you  said  about  Chester- 
field,  Qoethe,  and  John  Stuart  Mill  virtually  exonerates 
them  from  all  your  slanderous  charges. 

Ton  seem,  however,  so  fond  of  stirring  up  these  charges 
of  adultery,  etc.,  against  Infidels,  that  I  feel  constrained  to 
fulfill  the  promise  made  in  my  last  to  give  you  more  cases  of 
clerical  derelictions,  if  that  kind  of  literature  proved  inter- 
esting to  you.  I  will,  then,  continue  the  recital,  where  I 
left  off,  with  the  assurance  that  if  you  still  want  more  I  will 
endeavor  to  accommodate  you. 

You  err  in  supposing  I  am  actuated  by  a  spiteful  spirit  iu 
the  reference  I  make  to  the  heinous  crimes  of  the  clergy. 
I  assure  you  it  is  more  in  sorrow  than  in  anger  that  I  re- 
count the  great  shortcomings  of  this  pretentious  class  of 
men.  I  would  far  rather  have  it  in  my  power  to  speak  in 
praise  of  every  clergyman  in  the  land.  Some  of  them  are 
very  fine  men,  and  were  tli^  really  engaged  in  a  meritorioni 


THS  miMPHREY  •  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


as? 


cause  I  could  wish  them  all  the  sticcess  in  the  world.  But  it 
is  a  sad  fact  that  their  profession  of  godliness  does  not  ketp 
them  from  the  worst  of  crimes;  and  inasmuch  as  they  claim 
to  be  BO  much  better  than  unprof  essing  people  who  prate 
less  of  God  and  Jesus,  I  feel  it  to  be  only  right  to  show  them 
up  in  their  true  colors  that  their  real  character  may  be  bet- 
ter understood  by  the  unsuspecting  and.  confiding.  Your 
talk  about  fallen  clergymen  acting  contrary  to  the  example 
and  teaching  of  the  Bible  worthies  seems  to  me  mere 
twaddle,  for  their  weaknesses  were  precisely  in  keeping 
with  the  prominent  Bible  characters  and  those  acknowl- 
edged to  be  the  favorites  of  God  himself.  They  certainly 
acted  quite  consistently  in  their  adulterous  practices  with 
Bible  examples.  Your  attempt  to  make  it  appear  that 
the  filthy  and  lecherous  conduct  of  the  Christian  clergy  is  in 
accordance  with  the  teachings  of  prominent  Infidels  is  slan- 
derously false,  and  I  am  surprised  that  you  should  have 
the  hardihood  to  say  that  it  was  the  practice  of  Infidel  doc- 
trines that  made  them  what  they  were.  I  pronounce  your 
aspersions  wholly  uncalled  for.  Their  conduct  was  emi- 
nently Christian.  You  speak  about  the  names  of  the  sinful 
clergymen  not  being  given  in  some  instances.  In  some  of 
the  most  horrible  cases  the  names  were  omitted  for  obvious 
reasons;  but  if  you  feel  anxious  to  have  the  names  you  can 
be  accommodated  by  calling  upon  me.  You  are  wrong,  as 
usual,  in  asserting  that  some  cases  are  put  in  twice  to  en- 
large the  list.  The  truth  is,  on  the  contrary,  that  thousands 
of  cases  were  omitted  that  might  be  named.  You  must 
know  there  is  more  than  one  Smith,  more  than  one  Jones, 
more  than  one  Thompson,  who  pretends  to  stand  up  for 
Jesus,  and  yet  lamentably  fails  to  do  so. 

You  must  understand  that,  from  a  Christian  standpoint, 
it  ia  a  much  greater  crime  for  an  embassador  of  Jesus — the 
shepherd  who  assumes  to  fold  and  feed  the  little  lambs;  be 
who  has  bathed  in  the  fountain  filled  with  blood  drawn 
from  Emanuera  veins;  who  has  the  grace  of  God,  the  power 


If 


TEB  HUMPHBBT- BENNETT  DI9CU8IIOK. 

ol  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  sweet  Influence  of  the  Son  to  aid 
him;  who  has  saneiificatwn,  regeneratum,  and  emueratian  on 
his  side— for  this  class  of  men,  I  repeat,  it  seems  a  much 
worse  offense  to  commit  adultery,  sodomy,  etc.,  than  for  a 
mere  Infldel  to  deviate  from  the  strictest  propriety,  when  he 
has  nothing  to  depend  upon  and  help  him  save  his  own  sin- 
ful nature  and  his  own  "  total  depravity"!  For  a  wretched 
sinner  to  err  is  not,  perhaps,  strange,  but  for  a  saint  who 
has  experienced  the  joy  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  and  who 
has  partaken  of  the  manna  of  the  heavenly  world,  to  de- 
scend to  the  slums  of  filth,  of  vice  and  corruption,  his  crime 
is  far  less  excusable.  You  may  possibly  look  on  the  rela- 
tive criminality  of  sins  committed  by  Christians  and  Infi- 
dels in  the  same  light  in  which  another  clergymen  viewed 
it  whom  I  heard  of  when  a  boy.  He  was  asked  what  the 
difference  was  between  a  Christian's  sinning  and  a  sinner's 
binning.  "Oh,"  said  he.  in  pious  tones,  "a  sinner  sins 
willingly  and  without  protesting,  but  the  Christian  sins  with 
a  most  grcHi-a-cums  reluctance  ! " 

1  admit  that  it  is  a  foul,  offensive  narrative,  but  the  guilt 
consists  altogether  in  the  commission  of  the  crimes,  and  not 
in  the  exposure  of  them.  Besides,  bellevhig  th^  clergy  to 
be  dead  weights  and  dead  beats  upon  the  body  politic,  I 
conceive  it  to  be  a  part  of  my  duty  to  expose  to  public  gaze 
their  hypocrisy,  their  villainy,  and  their  unworthiness  of 
reverence  and  esteem,  and  I  give  you  the  positive  assurance 
that  for  every  prominent  Infidel  who  has  been  guilty  of 
adultery  and  sexual  improprieties,  I  can  furnish  the  names 
of  flfjy— not  common  members  of  the  churches,  but  the 
bright  lights,  the  leaders,  the  men  who  spout  most  about 
•*  holiness."    IiCt  me  resume  the  offensive  recital. 

Grafton  Brown,  one  of  the  saints  of  the  Carroll,  M.  B, 
church,  seduced  a  daughter  of  Mr.  Thomas  Sellmon.  He 
had  a  wife  and  eight  children,  but  insisted  that  his  wife  had 
become  too  cold  for  him.  His  case  required  one  warm 
and  ardent 


i 


TBB   HTTMPHBBY-BENNSTT  DISCUSSION. 


389 


Her.  James  Bradley,  a  brilliant  preacher  of  the  Ironside 
Baptist  denomination  at  Huntsville,  Mo.,  seduced  one  of 
the  church  sisters  and  lived  in  adultery  with  her  for  five 
years,  when  the  arrival  of  a  little  infant  brought  his  guilt 
to  light,  and  he  suddenly  had  business  that  called  him 
elsewhere.    The  girl  and  her  relatives  were  left  to  mourn 

her  sad  fate. 

Rev.  Mr.  Wolfe,  Presbyterian,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  was 
placed  under  bonds  to  keep  the  peace,  for  knocking  his 
wife  down  with  an  umbrella. 

Rev.  R.  T.  Green,  of  the  English  church  at  Ailsa  Craig, 
Out,  was  imprisoned  for  forging  endorsements  on  a  note. 

Rev.  John  J.  Thompson,  Presbyterian,  Washington  City, 
was  caught  in  his  night-shirt  crawling  in  the  window  of  a 
sleeping-room  where  two  young  ladies  slept.  They  made 
an  outcry,  when  he  threatened  to  shoot  them  if  they  were 
not  stilL  He  tried  to  get  into  bed  with  them.  Members  of 
his  church  tried  to  get  him  clear  on  the  plea  of  insanity. 

Rev.  Levi  S.  Bettinger,  in  Baltimore  county,  Md.,  had 
placed  in  his  charge  a  young  lady  to  educate.  He  seduced 
her  and  then  deserted  her,  but  was  allowed  to  retain  hib 

position. 

Rev.  A.  J.  Culver,  of  the  Evangelical  Association  in 
Eastern  Iowa,  a  good-looking  man  and  a  strong-voiced 
preacher,  whose  field  of  labor  was  in  the  moral  vineyard 
of  Lisbon,  Iowa,  was  so  zealous  in  the  cause  of  his 
Master  that  he  was  called  a  Lieutenant  of  Jesus.  Being 
a  single  man,  he  engaged  board  with  a  widow  who  had 
a  pretty  and  engaging  daughter.  It  is  not  strange  that 
Culver  loved  her,  and  he  ought  to  have  married  her,  for  he 
was  the  father  of  a  bouncing  big  boy  of  which  she  was  the 
mother.    Previous  to  the  birth  of  the  child  she  married  a 

fine  man  in  the  neighborhood,  a  Mr.  H .    When,  soon 

after  marriage  the  child  was  born,  her  husband  asked  her 
who  was  the  father.  She  answered  it  was  the  Rev.  Culver. 
Ha  was  arraigned  before  a  council  of  clergymen  ;  he  was 


0\ 

i  I 


111- 


490 


THB  HXJlfPnilET-BENNEtT  OlftCUftttdlf. 


■   '  If 


:lJ 


found  guilty  and  expelled  from  liis  church.  The  confer- 
ence, however,  reinstated  him  in  the  holy  calling  of  ihep- 
here  to  the  gentle  lambs,  and  he  Is  now  delivering  the  bread 
of  life  to  the  sinners  of  Illinois.  The  girl  swore  to  the 
paternity  of  the  child  before  Peter  Heller,  Justice  of 
the  Peace.  The  husband,  not  wishing  to  raise  any  Culver 
etock,  separated  from  his  unfortunate  wife  and  obtained  a 
4ivorce  froai  her.  Thus  her  life  was  saddened  and  made 
wretr  hed  by  the  lusts  of  this  pious  man  of  God. 

Rev.  Mr.  Speare,  Mason,  III.,  an  intimate  friend  of  a 
banker  of  that  city,  while  the  latter  was  busy  with  a  custom- 
er, pocketed  a  roll  of  bank  bills  amounting  to  $1,000,  took  the 
train  to  Bloomington,  deposited  the  money,  and  returned 
as  if  nothing  had  happened.  He  is  now  under  f2,500  bonds 
to  appear  before  the  criminal  court. 

A  colored  preacher  in  Early  county,  Qa.,  was  fond  of 
watermelons.  One  night  he  strayed  Into  the  melon-patch  of 
a  neighbor,  who,  having  been  preyed  upon,  was  on  the 
watch.  He  fired  upon  the  intruder  and  killed  him  on  the 
spot.  The  colored  reverend  died  with  the  fruit  still  in  his 
mouth.    Oh  I  water-melon  choliy  affair. 

Rev.  T.  M.  Dawson,  Presbyterian,  San  Francisco,  CaL, 
was  guilty  of  the  prevailing  infirmity— too  much  "true  in- 
ward oeas.*'    His  love  for  the  sisters  was  too  ardent. 

Rtv.  Lorenzo  Dow,  presiding  elder  in  Eastern  Kentucky, 
eon  of  a  clergyman,  grandson  of  a  clergyman  and  name- 
sake of  a  great  clergyman,  sent  his  wife  to  her  father*8 
without  money,  borrowed  all  the  money  he  could  from  the 
brethren  and  eloped  with  a  girl,  a  daughter  of  another 
clergyman,  at  Louisa,  Ey.  He  used  a  great  amount  of  du- 
plicity and  falsehood  to  carry  out  his  foul  designs.  It  cast  & 
gje&i  gloom  over  the  entire  community.  A  particular  fea- 
ture of  the  case  was  that  the  father  of  the  girl  could  not 
gay  much,  for  years  before,  when  a  clergyman,  he  played 
the  same  trick  with  another  man's  daughter.  Thus  they  go. 

i>r.  Harlao,  Methodist,  in  a  Nebraska  town,  was  driven 


TBM  HUUPHRET-BfiNNSTT  OISCIIMIOir. 


291 


1 


from  the  pulpit  for  lying,  vulgarity  and  defaming  his 
brethren. 

Rev.  Alexander  McKilvey,  of  Westfield,  N.  J.,  was  de- 
posed from  the  pulpit  for  criminal  conduct.   • 

Rev.  R.  Petteplaoe,  ot  Lowell,  Mass.,  was  accused  by  his 
wife  of  committiug  adultery  with  the  nurse-girl  in  their 
employ.  An  inquiry  was  instituted,  when  he  confessed 
his  guilt,  and  stepped  down  and  out. 

Rev.  Wm.  H.  Lee,  Jersey  City,  was  guilty  of  grossly 
beating  his  wife,  and  was  tried  for  the  offense. 

Rev.  F.  D.  James,  of  Somerville,  Mass.,  was  guilty  of 
forgery  by  placing  other  people's  names  to  deeds  and  other 
documents. 

Rev.  William  Henry  Jones,  pastor  of  Grace  Episcopal 
Church,  Toronto,  was  subjected  to  a  trial  upon  fourteen  dif- 
ferent charges,  among  which  were  getting  drunk,  telling 
falsehoods,  embezzling  money,  vulgar  conversation  and 
other  unsaintly  offenses. 

A  clergyman  of  Oxford,  England,  was  sentenced  to 
twenty  month's  imprisonment  for  foully  assaulting  a  girl  of 
fourteen  years  of  age  whom  he  had  but  recently  con- 
firmed. 

Rev.  P.  P.  Wimberly,  of  Atchinson,  Pa.,  started  out  on 
a  grand  begging  campaign  to  raise  money  to  pay  the  debts 
of  his  church;  but  he  was  overcome  by  the  weakness  of  the 
flesh,  and  spent  the  money  in  sinful  pleasures. 

Rev.  N.  L.  Phillips,  Monticello,  Iowa,  of  the  United 
Brethren  Church,  was  guilty  of  immoral  conduct  with  sis- 
ter Biirnes,  wife  of  Herbert  Barnes.  After  playing  a  base 
game  with  the  unsuspecting  husband  in  obtaining  money 
from  him,  the  guilty  ones  eloped  together.  The  villainous 
clergyman  left  a  legal  wife  and  children  behind,  whom  he 
piously  recommended  to  continue  family  worship  and 
l^rayer. 

Rev.  Prof.  Wm.  F.  Black,  the  leading  clergyman  in  the 
Ohrletiaa  or  CampbelUte  denomination  in  the  West,  and 


li!' 


na  HUMFHBXT-BINirETT  DIBCITISIOir. 

formerly  president  of  the  Northwestern  Christian  Unirer- 
aity  at  Indianapolis,  fell  from  grace  and  was  guilty  of  crim- 
inal conduct  with  Miss  Corinne  E.  Voss,  a  gay  and  beauti- 
ful woman,  daughter  of  a  very  wealthy  lawyer  and  specu- 
lator. She  started  ostensibly  to  make  a  journey  and  visit 
some  friends  in  Kansas,  and  by  agreement  he  met  her  at 
Terre  Haute  and  accompanied  her  to  St.  Louis,  where  they 
stopped  over  night  at  the  Planter's  Hotel,  and  passed  them- 
selves off  as  man  and  wife. 

Rev.  E.  Hopkins,  St.  Johnsbury,  Vt.,  was  arrested  on  a 
charge  of  forgery,  and  was  proved  guilty. 

Bev.  Rudolph  Weizerbeck,  pastor  of  Bloomingdale  Ger- 
man Lutheran  Church,  was  arrested  for  defrauding  the 
pension  agency.  When  searched,  two  forged  pension  cer- 
tificates were  found  upon  his  person. 

Rev.  Albert  Rablete,  Hoboken,  N.  J.,  was  committed  to 
prison  for  twenty  days  for  fraudulent  begging  and  intem- 
perance. 

Rev.  Jerome  D.  Hopkins  swindled  the  people  of  Brook- 
lyn by  falsely  representing  himself  as  poor,  and  as  having  a 
sister  lying  sick  at  Washington.  In  this  way  he  raised  con- 
siderable funds. 

Rev.  J.  H.  Foster,  whose  last  field  of  nsolessness  was  in 
the  First  Congregational  Church  at  Hannibal,  Mo.,  though 
talented,  and  prepossessing  in  appearance,  and  very  popu- 
lar with  the  sisters,  turned  out  to  be  a  bold,  bad  man— in 
fact,  a  regular  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing.  It  was  proved  that 
he  had  wives  living  to  the  number  of  five,  and  that  he  was 
a  gambler  and  a  dissolute  person.  He  wore  a  most  saintly 
countenance,  but  the  Devil  was  too  near  his  heart.  He  dis- 
creetly resigned  his  charge,  and  betook  himself  to  other  and 
more  congenial  fields  of  labor. 

Rev.  John  H.  Morris,  who  a  portion  of  the  time  preached 
at  the  Paasyunk  Baptist  Church  in  Philadelphia,  proved 
himself  to  be  a  criminal  of  the  most  revolting  character. 
In  1875  he  lost  his  wife,  and  subsequently  married  her  sit* 


THE  HUMPHRKT-BKNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


293 


ter.  Soon  after  that  he  adopted  a  little  girl  eight  years  of 
age,  named  Mary  Rue,  daughter  of  a  widow,  and  it  turned 
out  that  for  a  year  the  brute — worse  than  any  brute — 
had  been  holding  criminal  relations  with  that  small  child. 
His  wife  caught  him  in  bed  with  the  child  at  two  o'clock  in 
the  night,  and  in  the  criminal  act.  The  girl  subsequently 
confessed  all  about  it  to  her  mother,  and  stated  that  the 
pious  man  by  intimidation  and  threats  had  subjected  her  to 
his  vile  uses.  He  was  imprisoned  for  trial  which  has  not 
yet  taken  place. 

Rev.  John  C.  Simpson,  of  Oregon,  Mo.,  was  convicted  of 
illicit  distilling,  the  Jury  finding  him  guilty  on  all  five 
counts.  He  is  fifty  years  of  age,  and  has  been  preaching 
twenty  years. 

Elder  Samuel  H.  McGhee,  of  the  Christian  or  Campbellite 
denomination,  whose  last  fiock  attended  upon  his  minis- 
trations at  Ashton,  Lee  Co.,  111.,  had  the  weakness  to  fall 
in  love  with  a  pretty,  intelligent  young  lady  of  his  church, 
named  Lorilla  Paddock,  and  that  he  might  take  her  to  his 
bosom,  he  procured  poison  and  administered  it  to  his  wife, 
who  died  in  great  sufferinir.  His  trial  was  held  in  Dixon, 
and  the  verdict  of  guilty  was  rendered  against  him.  He  is 
now  working  out  his  sentence  of  fourteen  years  at  hard 
labor  in  the  State  prison  of  Illinois. 

Rev.  J.  P.  Roberts,  Methodist,  of  Ulien,  Wis.,  was  sub- 
jected to  a  trial  for  lying  and  slander. 

Rev.  J.  F.  Leak,  Methodist,  at  Troy,  Kansas,  an  aged 
clergyman,  who  for  many  years  has  been  looked  upon  as 
a  saint  of  the  first  water,  brought  himself  into  great  tribula- 
tion by  making  love  to  an  interesting  young  lady  of  his 
fiock,  who  weekly  attended  upon  his  ministrations  and 
draok  in  the  words  of  piety  that  fell  from  his  lips.  He 
wrote  her  a  number  of  letters,  and  plead  with  her  mo^t 
earnestly  to  fly  with  him  to  England  where,  by  the  side  of 
a  beautiful  lake,  like  Como,  they  could  make  a  paradise  of 
their  own,  and  where  the  rude  eyes  of  curiosity  could  never 


S0i 


THB  HirMPHRET-BKHKET?  BlSCUSaiON. 


And  them  oat  For  some  reason,  they  did  not  atart  for 
tliat  loTely  paradise;  and  an  ugly  feature  of  the  interesting 
case  is  that  the  young  lady  has  given  birth  to  a  child,  and 
the  dear  pastor  is  in  about  as  much  trouble  as  he  wishes  tc 
feeL.  The  mishap  is  seriously  regretted  by  all  the  faithful 
of  the  church,  but  such  things  seem  to  happen  very  fre- 
quently. 

Rev.  Mr.  Keely,  of  Madison,  was  led  into  trouble  by  the 
bewitching  airs  of  a  pretty  woman,  named  Clemmens. 

Rev.  John  Moody,  Cincinnati,  was  imprisoned  for  appro- 
priating to  his  own  use  money  that  he  had  collected  for 
building  a  church. 

Rev.  Dewitt  Knowlton,  Boltonville,  was  brought  to  great 
disgrace  by  the  persistency  with  which  a  sister  of  the 
church  demanded  that  he  should  acknowledge  the  pater- 
nity of  her  child.  The  affair  cast  a  cloud  over  his  other- 
wise fair  nameu 

Rev.  A.  J.  Warren,  of  the  M.  E.  church.  North  Vernon, 
Ind..  eloped  with  sister  Stanton,  carrying  with  them  all  the 
church  and  Sabbath-school  funds  of  which  he  was  pos- 
ficsf ed.    He  left  a  wife  and  four  little  children. 

Rev.  Mason  Noble,  of  Sheffield,  Mass.,  a  popular  Con- 
greg*tion»il  clergyman,  was  formally  charged  with  seduction 
Vy  Miss  Bella  J.  Clark,  a  former  pupil  of  Westfield  Normal 
Bchool,  and  where  she  had  been  employed  ai  a  seamstress  in 
the  clergyman's  family. 

Rev.  W.  8.  Crow,  Hinsdale,  III.,  by  his  unlawful  inter- 
course with  a  deacon's  family,  succeeded  in  breaking  it  up 
and  getting  himself  deposed  from  the  pulpit. 

Rev.  Dominck  McCaffray.  of  the  Church  of  our  Savior, 
Third  avenue,  this  city,  was  accusf  d  by  the  pretty  Mrs. 
Leavitt  of  laying  his  hands  upon  her  and  kissing  her 
when  she  called  upon  him  in  his  study.    He  denied  it,  of 

course. 

Rev.  Martin  Uoernlcin,  of  Buffalo,  was  convicted  of 
arson  in  the  Eecond  degre«  for  setting  fire  to  his  own  house 


1 


nOE  amamtKY'-BBsmwrv  mscussiow. 


2911 


to  obtain  a  largo  insurance  ha  had  placed  upon  the  prop 
erty. 

ReT.  R  W.  Pearson,  Baptist  clergyman  in  Pittsburgh,  had 
a  sad  time  of  it.  Before  a  court  of  his  own  church  he  waa 
proved  guilty  of  lying,  drunkenness  and  numerous  adul- 
teries. He  had  resided  in  various  parts  of  the  country  and 
had  sinned  in  aU  of  them.  He  was  emphatically  what  is 
familiarly  called  a  **  bad  egg,** 

The  case  of  John  D.  Lee,  Mormon  bishop,  who  was  en- 
gaged in  the  Mountain  Meadow  massacre  twenty  years  ago, 
and  who  was  shot  by  United  Stotes  authorities  for  hi^ 
heinous  crime,  is  fresh  in  the  public  memory.  Although 
his  hands  had  long  been  red  (metaphorically  speaking)  with 
the  blood  of  his  helpless  fellow-beings,  he  died  full  of  con- 
fidence and  love  of  Jesus  and  felt  sure  of  going  straight  to 
hun  as  soon  as  his  breath  left  his  body.  He  boasted  at  the 
hour  of  his  death  that  he  was  not  an  Infidel,  but  died  a  good 
Christian. 

Abbe  Beangard,  vicar  of  an  important  post  in  Paris,  waa 
in  1877,  sentenced  to  fifteen  years  transportation  for  crimi- 
nally assaulting  two  little  girls  and  communicatinij  to  ihem 
a  loathsome  disease. 

Rev.  G.  R  Williams,  while  preaching  in  Griggstown,  N. 
Y.,  was  engaged  to  marry  a  nice  young  lady  of  his  congre- 
gation, when  a  former  wife  very  inopportunely  put  in  aa 
appearance  and  broke  up  the  little  arrangement.  The  cler- 
gyman soon  found  he  had  business  that  called  him  else- 
where. 

Rev.  Paul  T.  Valentine,  Ph.D.,  and  D.D.,  and  LL.D.  was 
tried  and  sentenced  to  ten  years'  impiisonment  by  Re- 
corder Hackett  in  General  Sessions  in  this  city,  April,  1877, 
for  the  most  revolting  and  despicable  crimes  in  the  entire 
criminal  calendar— the  corruption  and  vile  use  of  liule 
boys  and  girls  under  his  charge  in  what  he  called  a  *'  Col- 
lege  for  Homeless  Children,"  where  he  pretended  to  teach 
them  useful  employment  and  to  fit  them  for  the  actual 


i 


TOB  KUMPHEBY-BUafBTT  DISCUSSION. 

datiea  of  life,  when  in  realliy  he  practiced  the  grossost 
Climes  known  to  man.  Nine  witnesses  testified  in  the  most 
pointed  manner  against  him.  Rtcorder  Hackett  said  the 
case  was  the  most  atrocious  that  had  ever  come  to  his 
knowledge  during  his  long  service  in  the  criminal  courts  of 
this  wicked  city,  and  he  was  only  sorry  that  the  extreme  pen- 
ally  for  the  crimes  was  not  death.  He  gave  the  culprit  the 
full  extent  preacribed  by  the  law-ten  years'  imprison- 
ment at  hard  labor. 

Rev.  Joseph  Jones,  a  Baltimore  Methodist  clergyman, 
greatly  gifted  in  revivals,  got  hold  of  a  bequest  of  $50.. 
000  which  had  been  made  to  his  church,  and  diverted 
it  to  his  own  benefit.  He  got  involved,  and  when  the 
crime  was  exposed  he  committed  suicide. 

Rev.  E.  J.  Baird.  a  Richmond  (Va.)  Presbyterian  clergy- 
man,  SecreUry  of  the  Presbyterian  Publishing  Committee, 
was  tried  for  embezzling  $23,000  of  funds  belonging  to  the 
Committee,  and  which  he  wa*  unable  to  replace,  and  of 
course  was  iummarily  deposed. 

Rev.  Leaven  Fausette,  of  Port  Huron,  La.,  was  hung  for 

murder. 

U.  8.  Senator  Brownlow,  of  Tennesee.  who  was  for  many 
years  a  clergyman,  as  well  as  an  editor  and  afterwards 
Governor  of  the  State,  in  his  book  published  some  years 
ago,  uses  this  language  in  reference  to  clergymen  in  the 
South:  ••!  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying,  as  I  now  do,  that 
the  worst  men  who  make  tracks  upon  Southern  soU  are 
Methodist.  Presbyierian,  Baptist,  and  Episcopal  clergymen. 
and  at  the  head  of  them  for  mischief  are  the  MethodisU  " 
(p   187).    "A  majority  of  the  clergymen  have  acted  upon 
the  principle  that  the  kingdom  of  their  divine  master  is  of 
this  world,  and  as  a  consequence  many  of  them  have  cm- 
harked  in  fighting,  lying/  and  drinking  mean  whiskey  "  (p. 
190)     "  Here,  as  in  all  parts  of  the  South,  the  worst  class 
of  men  are  preachers.  They  have  done  more  to  bring  about 
the  deplorabk  state  of  things  exisUng  in  the  country  [refer- 


im  mmpaBXt-nmrnm  discubsioh. 


207 


ring  to  the  war  of  the  Rebellion]  than  any  other  class  of 
men.  And  foremost  in  this  work  of  mischief  are  the  Meth- 
odist  preachers.  Brave  in  anticipation  of  war.  and  prone 
to  denunciation  on  all  occasions,  even  in  the  pulpit,  they 
have  been  amoiig  the  first  to  take  to  their  heels"  (p.  892). 

To  give  some  idea  of  the  Catholic  clergy,  let  me  make 
some  quotations  from  one  who  had  excellent  opportunities 
for  knowing  their  habits  and  customs.  Father  John  W. 
Gerdermann,  ez-Catholic  priest  of  St.  Bonifacius  Church  in 
Philadelphia.  After  renouncing  the  hypocritical  priest-life 
which  he  had  led  for  ten  years,  in  a  lecture  delivered  to  an 
immense  audience  in  that  city,  in  the  summer  of  1875,  drew 
this  faithful  picture  of  the  false-hearted  fraternity  he  had 
forsaken: 

"  I  come  now  to  the  last  great  blot  on  the  character  of 
the  Roman  clergy,  which  you  will  allow  me  to  treat  in  a 
cursoiy  manner  out  of  respect  to  the  audience  I  have  the 
honor  to  address.  Priests  are  not  allowed  to  marry;  would 
to  God  they  were.  They  are  called  Fathers  by  the  people, 
and  unfortunately,  with  many  it  is  not  only  a  name  but  a 
sad  reality;  not  the  honored,  hallowed  napie  of  father,  but 
a  name  whispering  of  shame  and  a  broken  heart,  if  not  a 
ruined  family.  Undoubtedly  the  young  men  who  are  or- 
dained priests  are  generally  pure,  sincere,  and  good;  but 
alas  I  the  system  of  celibacy,  at  all  times  the  bane  of  the 
Catholic  ministry,  too  often  ruins  them.  I  spoke  to  a 
priest  last  year  about  this  time,  about  getting  married  and 
leaving  the  Church.  He  called  me  a  fool,  and  advised  me 
not  to  leave  the  easy  life  of  the  priesthood,  but  to  do  liko 
him  and  keep  a  mistress.  I  thanked  him  for  his  advice  and 
told  him  I  was  no  dog.  Bishop  Wood  told  me  of  more  than 
one  priest  in  his  diocese  whom  he  characterized  as  Immoral, 
and  thoroughly  bad  men,  who  to  this  day  hold  their  offices. 
Marry,  forsooth,  in  an  honorable  way.  the  priest  is  not  al- 
lowed, but  ruin  a  poor  girl  he  may.  It  is  better,  the  Pope 
teaches,  for  a  pricnt  to  hiTe  two  oonoabine^  thaa  marry 


one  woman  lawfully,    ffliamo  upon  snch  morality!   Shamr 
vpon  the  Ghurch  with  Bueh  teachingt 

"I  repeatedly  have  heard  good  and  sincere  piiests  say  it 
was  a  blessing  the  American  people  did  not  know  the  true 
character  of  the  Roman  priesthood,  for  if  they  dld^  they 
woold  sweep  them  out  of  the  country,  and  1  assure  yoii  if 
you  should  know  them  as  I  do,  you  would  not  consider  the 
remark  any  too  haish.    Krstly,  they  ha^e  an  Inordinate 
desire  for  money.    The  poor  people  are  asked  for  money  at 
all  times  and  occasions    The  more  a  man  gives  the  beltef 
ke  is  liked^    He  must  pay  every  time  he  comes  to  church, 
and  every  time  the  priest  comes  to  him.    No  matter  how 
poor  the  family  may  be,  how  hard  the  man  may  work,  how 
much  the  mother  may  slave,  how  poorly  the  children  are 
tlad,  no  matter  whether  tlie  groeer  is  paid,  the  priest  must 
have  kis  dues.    Baptisms,  marriages,  and  funerals,  must  be 
paid  for,  and  woe  to  the  poor  Catholic  who  offers  a  priest 
less  than  ftve  dollars.    Too  much  he  can  never  give.    Go 
to  any  Catholia  church  in  this  cUy  on  Sunday,  and  you 
hear  something  about  money  always^    The  more  a  priest 
returns  to  the  bishop,  for  the  seminary  or  other  purposes, 
the  higher  he  rises  in  the  bishop's  esteem.    Provided  » 
priest  is  sound  on  the  money  question  his  other  qualities 
are  of  minor  importance.    I  know  over  five  hundred  priesta 
and  sixty  bishops  in  this  country ;  I  have  frequently  been 
in  priests*  and  bishops'  company,  and  whenever  the  question 
«ame  on  the  congregations  they  never  asked,  'How  are 
your  people!  are  they  temperatet  faithful  in  attendance 
at  church?  do  they  raise  their  children  well  f  but  always, 

*  How  much  pew-rents  do  you  get  V    •  What  do  your  col- 
lections amount  tof    *What  do  you  get  at  Christmas  f 

•  What  are  your  fees  for  baptism  and  marriage  V  and  if  the 
aums  did  not  seem  large  enough,  you  would  hear  a  'Damn  it, 
that's  little.*  I  know  priests  who  have  been  scarce  ten 
years  in  the  priesthood  and  who  own  from  ^0,000  to 
|(l0.OOa    And  the  poor  pe(4>le  who  glye  are  never  told 


where  the  money  goes  to.  If  o  priest  knows  what  the  bishop 
owns.  No  congregation  hears  what  a  priest  receives  nor 
how  it  is  spent  And  how  is  it  spent  ?  A  good  deal  of  it 
ta  gambling,  cigars,  grand  dinners,  and  good  drinks. 
Priests  are,  without  doubt,  the  best  livers  in  the  country. 
Whenever  you  meet  a  company  of  priests,  be  it  on  Sunday 
or  week  day,  night  or  day  time,  you  nearly  always  find 
them  at  a  game  of  euchre,  and  not  for  mere  pastime,  but 
for  money.  I  often  saw,  especially  Irish  priests,  play  for 
quarters,  halves,  and  a  dollar  a  game.  The  German  priests 
were  generally  content  with  a  game  for  ten  cents.  Then 
come  the  grand  dinners,  served  in  the  most  approved  style, 
for  which  the  good  people  foot  the  bilL  Those  dinners  are 
not  gotten  up  on  a  small  scale,  either,  but  cost  from  $500  to 
$2,500.  The  bishop  gives  generally  three  or  four  grand 
dinners  a  year,  when  the  priests  are  invited,  and  God  knows 
how  many  on  a  smaller  scale.  Priests  give  their  dinners 
on  stated  occasions— at  the  funeral  of  a  priest,  and  the  day 
of  a  corner-stone  laying,  or  at  the  dedication  of  a  new 
church,  and  annually  on  the  last  day  of  the  forty  hours. 
The  poor  people  are  in  at  their  prayers,  while  the  good 
fathers  are  enjoying  their  terrapin,  canvas-back,  and  cham- 
pagne. 

'•But  the  great  curse  of  the  priesthood  in  this  country  is 
the  vice  of  drunkenness.  Of  the  extent  of  this  vice  I  can 
give  you  no  adequate  idea.  When  priests  meet,  the  first 
and  the  lasl  thing  is  a  drink;  early  in  the  morning  and  late 
at  night,  the  whiskey-bottle  is  their  consolation.  If  you 
would  not  offer  whiskey  and  wine— and  plenty  of  it,  to  your 
visitors,  you  would  soon  be  spotted  and  cried  down  as  a 
fool.  Bishop  Wood,  who  was  a  frequent  visitor  at  my 
house,  said  he  did  not  want  any  •  Teutonic  acid,'  meaning 
good  German  wine,  but  insisted  on  having  champagne. 
And  let  me  show  you  that  his  capacity  is  rather  a  large  one. 
I  was  traveling  with  him  in  Schuylkill  county,  three  or 
four  weeks  before  I  left  the  Ghurch,  and  I  will  now  give 


nn  smiFBKnp-nQniBTT  msccmnnr. 


TBB  BUMPHBIT-BENNBTT  DnOUSSION. 


801 


I- 


i.' 


you  his  da7*8  work.  Early  that  morning  he  oonflrmed  in 
the  German  church  at  St  Olair.  After  haying  administered 
confirmation,  a  good  breakfast  was  spread  before  him. 
He  did  not  touch  it  but  asked  for  a  bottle  of  wine. 
Good  Father  Froude  was  rather  surprised,  and  said: 
*  Hallo  I  wine  for  breakfast  V  After  the  wine  was  finished 
we  went  to  the  English  church.  There  the  bishop  com- 
plained of  the  poor  wine  of  Father  Froudf^,  and  asked  for 
and  received  a  bottle  of  champagne.  After  he  had  given 
confirmation  there,  a  few  glasses  of  lager  beer  were  enjoyed. 
Then  came  dinner,  and  a  good  one  it  was,  and  he  partook 
freely  of  beer,  wine,  champagne,  and  brandy  to  wash  it 
down.  Before  we  left  St.  Glair  for  Mahony  Plain,  on  the 
Superintendent's  ^>ecial  car,  a  few  more  bottles  of  cham- 
pagne were  opened  and  dispatched  by  him  and  the  priests 
present  Scarcely  had  we  reached  Father  O^Connor's  house 
when  he  asked  for  goat-milk  punch,  of  which  he  took  two 
or  three  glasses,  afterward  he  followed  it  with  a  few  glasses 
of  champagne.  Still  he  got  through  with  confirming  about 
two  hundred  people,  only  complaining  of  not  being  quite 
well;  the  dinner  of  terrapin,  pheasants,  and  other  choice 
things  served  afterward,  he  did  not  enjoy,  and  he  went  to 
bed,  where  I  brought  to  him  the  last  glass  of  champagne 
after  eleven  o'clock.  When  you  hear  that  a  bishop  can  do 
so  much  in  that  line,  and  still  be  able  to  give  confirmation, 
you  will  not  be  surprised  to  hear  that  bills  for  liquors  and 
wines  are  large  with  a  priest  who  often  enjoys  his  visits. 
To  be  serious,  the  greater  part  of  the  priests  who  have  died 
in  this  diocese  since  I  was  ordained  died  of  too  much  drink, 
and  many  priests  are  serving  there  now  who  more  than 
once  suffered  from  delirium  tremens. 

"  To  see  priests  drunk  in  their  houses  is  bad  enough,  but 
how  much  worse,  how  much  more  disgraceful  is  it  for  them 
to  be  drunk  in  the  pulpit  and  at  the  altar  1  Even  in  Sep- 
tember last,  I  heard  a  sermon  preached  at  the  close  of  the 
forty  hours*  difvotioii,  one  of  the  moti  aokmn  occasions  in 


the  Catholic  Church,  by  a  priest  when  under  the  influence 
of  liquor.  That  man  arrived  about  two  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon,  completely  drunk.  He  slept  off,  it  is  true,  partly 
the  effects  of  his  debauch,  still,  when  he  preached  at  seven 
o'clock,  he  was  anything  but  sober.  After  the  ceremonies 
were  over,  he  recommenced  his  potations,  mixing  whiskey, 
beer,  wine,  and  champagne,  till  he  fell  on  the  floor  beastly 
drunk.  That  man  is  in  the  mission  to-day,  pastor  of  « 
large  congregation,  although  it  is  well  known  that  not  a 
week  passes  in  which  he  is  not  drunk  once  or  twice.  On 
another  occasion,  a  priest— who  now  rests  in  a  drunkard's 
grave — was  so  completely  drunk  when  carrying  the  wafer 
in  procession  through  his  church,  that  I  and  another  priest 
who  acted  as  deacons,  had  to  support  him  to  keep  him  from 
falling.  I  might  adduce  many  more  instances  of  the  fear- 
ful intemperance  as  prevailing  among  the  Roman  clergy: 
but  I  suppose  enough  has  been  said  to  convince  you  thai 
temperance  is  a  virtue  almost  unknown  among  them." 

I  will  now  give  you  a  few  paragraphs  upon  the  American 
clergy  from  the  ex-reverend  E.  E.  Guild,  who  was  for  many 
years  a  Protestant  clergyman,  but  who  from  honest  investi- 
gation and  conviction  was  induced  to  abandon  the  profes- 
sion he  no  longer  believed  it  was  right  for  him  to  follow. 
He  is  now  an  old  man,  highly  respected  by  those  who  know 
him,  and  his  testimony  may  be  received  with  all  confidence. 
I  quote  from  his  "  Pro  and  Con  of  Supernatural  Religion''^ 

"  Undoubtedly  the  priesthood,  like  all  other  learned  pro- 
fessions, is  composed  of  both  good  and  bad  men.  But  on 
the  score  of  merit,  it  cannot  justly  claim  any  superiority 
over  the  others.  Doubtless  the  clergy  are  no  better,  nor  any 
worse,  than  the  average  of  men,  only  so  far  as  the  false 
position  which  they  occupy  makes  them  so.  With  them 
the  business  of  theological  and  religious  teaching  is  a  pro- 
fession and  a  means  of  obtaining  a  livelihood.  Before  they 
enter  upon  their  work,  they  must,  before  God  and  man^ 
make  solemn  professions  of  faith  in  a  certain  creed  to  which 


s. 


m 


tin 


'. 


il 


TBI  H1«FHniT-BBim£TT  DXdOITBSXOir. 

they  an  expected  to  tdliere  and  defend  during  lift.    Oa 
tbeir  doing  this,  their  llTing  depends.    They  haye  a  pecun- 
iaiy  interest  at  sUke.    The  creed  must  be  maintained,  mia- 
aionary  work  must  be  done,  contributions  must  be  raised, 
revival  excitements  must  be  gotten  up,  converts  must  be 
made,  for  all  this  brings  grist  to  their  milL    They  are  con- 
servative in  their  tendencies,  opposed  to  all  innovation, 
tenacious  and  bigoted  in  their  opinions  and  blind  to  all 
newly- discovered  truth.    They  can  seldom  see  the  word 
truth,  because,  with  them,  it  is  covered  by  a  dollar.    Their 
occupation  leads  them  Into  the  practice  of  conscious  or  un- 
conscious hypocrisy.    They  assume  a  character  before  the 
people  that  they  by  no  means  maintain  in  their  families,  or 
when  in  company  with  each  other.    However  grave,  sancti- 
monious, and  circumspect  they  may  appear  in  public,  when 
assembled  in  company  by  themselves,  they  are  the  most 
jolly  of  men.    They  can  crack  their  Jokes,  tell  funny  sto- 
ries, relate  smutty  anecdotes,  and  indulge  in  low  gossip  to 
an  extent  unequaled  by  any  except  professional  libertines. 
They  denounce  human  selflshneas,  and  are  of  all  men  the 
most  selfish;  declaim  against  avarice,  and  are  mercenary 
and  avaricious;  preach  against  pride,  fashion  and  love  of 
the  world,  and  yet  are  as  proud,  as  servile  imitators  of  fash 
ion,  and  manifest  as  much  of  the  love  of  the  world,  as  othei 
men.    They  insist  on  the  necessity  of  self-denial,  but  think 
themselves  entitled  to  the  most  comfortable  places,  the  best 
bits,  the  choicest  dainties,  the  lion's  share  of  all  the  good 
things  of  life.    They  profess  to  be  awfully  concerned  and 
anxious  for  the  welfare  of  poor  sinners,  but  their  sleek, 
smooth,  well-to-do  appearance  gives  no  indication  of  their 
excessive  anxiety.    They  claim  that  men  in  their  natural 
state  are  totally  depraved,  and  yet,  in  this  country  at  least, 
they  profess  to  believe  In  a  free  government,  founded  on  the 
principle  that  the  people  have  a  right  to  govern  themselves, 
an  inconsistency  so  f  lacifig  tiiftl  It  makes  us  suspicious  of 
their  sincerity 


IBSa  SUKrHRBT-<BENNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


303 


^  The  art  of  proselyting  they  understand  to  perfectioa. 
IThis  is  an  Important  part  of  their  business.     However 
ignorant  they  may  be  on  all  other  sul:]^ect8,  this  they  per- 
fectly well  understand.    They  are  in  possession  of  all  ihe 
accumulated  experience  of  a  long  line  of  predecessors  ex- 
tending through  all  of  the  past  ages.    They  Itnow  human 
mature  well,  and  how  to  take  advantage  of  its  weaknesses. 
They  make  their  appeals  to  the  superstitious,  selfish  hopes 
and  f  earsof  ignorant  men,  and  having  what  Arcliimedes  only 
wanted,  another  world  on  which  to  plant  their  machinery^ 
It  is  no  wonder  that  in  almost  all  past  time  they  have  moved 
this  at  their  pleasure.    They  tax  all  their  ingenuity  and  «lo- 
<qaence  in  describing  the  beauties  of  a  heaven  about  which 
they  knew  nothing,  and  of  a  heU  of  which  they  are  equally 
ignorant— the  one  they  promise  as  a  reward  to  sdl  who  em- 
brace their  doctrines,  the  other  they  threaten  as  a  punish- 
ment to  be  inflicted  on  all  who  do  not.    In  this  way  they 
may  succeed,  perhaps,  in  luring  some  and  entrancing  others, 
4>ut  no  man  was  ever  made  really  any  better  by  being  actu- 
ilted  by  such  selfish  considerations.    They  condemn  human 
eelflshness  and  yet  cultivate  and  strengthen  it  by  making 
constant  appeals  to  it    They^re  the  greatest  beggars  in  the 
world.    Their  horseleech  cry  of  give,  give,  oan  he  heard  oa 
4he  mountains  and  in  the  valleys,  in  the  public  streets  and 
in  the  churches.    At  every  public  meeting  ostensibly  foi' 
Ibe  worship  of  God,  the  contribution-box  is  passed  around 
and  the  people  are  entreated  in  Qod*s  name  to  give.    The 
people  are  assured  that  if  they  will  give,  God  will  restore 
4o  them  four-fold,  but  not  one  of  them  wiU  stand  sponsor 
lor  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  or  guarantee  the  refund- 
ing of  the  gift  in  case  it  is  not.    In  a  thousand  varieties  of 
ways  vast  sums  of  money  are  raised  by  these  men  which 
£oes  to  help  the  warring  sects  to  vie  with  each  other  in 
l»uildihg  costly  churches  and  to  support  a  class  of  useless 
drones  in  the  human  hive. 

The  same  envyings  and  jealousies  that  exist  among  the 


«« 


THE  HVMPBRET-BSmiKTT  USCVBSroif: 


members  of  other  learned  professions  exist  among  them. 
They  will  unscrupidously  resort  to  measures  to  supplant  a 
brother  in  an  advantageous  situation,  or  in  the  esteem  and 
affections  of  the  people,  which  lawyers  and  physicians 
■corn  to  adopt,  and  have  too  great  a  sense  of  honor  and 
manhood  to  think  of  adopting.    If  one  of  their  number 
happens  to  become  convinced  of  the  erroneousness  of  his 
creed,  and  has  independence  and  moral  courage  enough  to 
•vow  his  honest  opinions,  the  rest  will  pounce  on  him  Jike 
m  hawk  upon  a  chicken.    They  wiU  pursue  him  with  mis- 
representations and  slander,  hurl  at  him  the  epithets  of 
•  Infidel/  '  emissary  of  S«tan,'  •  enemy  of  religion, '  call  him 
a  Juda8»  a   renegade,  an  apostate^  ostracise  him   from 
•ociety  if  they  can,  and  all  to  counteract  his  influence  in 
opposition  to  their  sectarian  views.    On  the  other  hand,  if 
wm  of  their  profession  is  accused  of  any  crime,  the  rest  of 
the  fratCTnity  will  gather  around  him,  form  a  solid  phalanx^ 
and  shield  him  from  exposure  if  they  can.    The  peculiar 
position  occupied  by  these  men  brings  them  into  close  rela- 
tion to  the  female  sex.    They,  knowing  that  women  are 
more  susceptible  of  reUgious  as  weU  as  superstitious  influ- 
tnee  than  men,  regard  them  as  their  right-hand  weapon  of 
offensive  and  defensive  war.    They  rely  mainly  ou  them 
to  further  their  designs.    Women,  educated  to  believe  that 
they  must  depend  on  men  for  support  and  protection,,  will 
inevitably  be  inclined  to  look  up  to  the  clergy  for  rel4iou» 
guidance  and  instruction.    This  brings  them  into  frequent 
and  famiUar  intimacy  with  that  class  of  men.    What  has 
fteen  the  result  t     Not  only  are  our  sectarian  churches 
made  up  principally  of  women  and  children,  but  the  history 
of  the  priesthood  in  all  ages  and  countries  proves  that  by 
no  other  class  of  professional  men  have  ao  many  crimes 
against  female  virtue  been  committed  as  by  them. 

"The  clergy  profess  to  look  upon  what  they  call  Infidel- 
ity  and  Materialism  with  the  utmost  horror  and  detestation. 
Th^  repreaeat  that  the  Matwriallstie  doetxiaes  are  destmct. 


THE  HUICPHBBT-BBNNETT  DlSCUSSIOir. 


8QS 


Ive  of  all  Joy  and  peace  on  earth,  and  deprive  us  of  all  our 
bright  hopes  and  anticipations  in  regard  to  the  future. 
Apparently  they  are  entirely  unconscious  of  the  fact  that 
they  themselves  are  constantly  promulgating  a  doctrine  as 
much  more  horrible  than  anything  in  Materialism  as  it  is 
in  the  power  of  the  human  imagination  to  conceive.  At 
the  very  worst,  even,  ultra-Materialism  would  do  nothing 
worse  than  consign  us  to  the  quiet  sleep  of  non-existence 
or  annihilation,  whereas  the  doctrine  of  the  clergy  would 
involve  a  majority  of  our  race  in  miseries  untold,  never- 
ending  and  indescribable.  All,  therefore,  who  hope  for  a 
future  blissful  existence,  must  desire  it  with  the  full  knowl- 
edge that  if  they  have  it,  they  enjoy  it  at  the  expense  of  the 
endless  and  inconceivable  sufferings  of  millions  of  their 
fellow-men.  Can  a  more  monstrous  exhibition  of  supreme 
selfishness  be  conceived  7       *  . 

'*  These  men  claim,  too,  that  by  some  mysterious  super- 
natural process  they  have  experienced  such  a  change  of 
nature,  such  a  regeneration  of  character,  such  a  sanctifica- 
tion  of  mind  and  heart  as  fits  them  to  be  the  mouth-pieces 
of  God,  and  the  leaders  and  instructors  of  mankind.  But 
of  what  use  is  it  for  them  to  pretend  to  any  superiot 
sanctity,  when  all  intelligent  men  know,  and  all  the  world 
ought  to  know,  that  they  *'are  men  of  like  passions  as 
others,'*  that  they  have  the  same  appetites,  passions, 
desires,  faults,  and  foibles  that  all  men  have.  The  criminal 
records  of  the  country  prove  that  in  proportion  to  their 
numbers  no  class  of  educated  men  furnish  a  greater  number 
of  the  inmates  of  our  jails  and  prisons  than  the  clergy. 

"There  are  in  the  United  States  over  seventy  thousand 
clergymen.  We  would  utilise  this  element  of  society. 
That  portion  of  them  who,  by  their  education,  talents  and 
moral  worth,  are  qualified  for  the  work,  we  would  have 
converted  into  teachers  in  our  schools  and  seminaries  of 
learning,  public  lecturers,  and  leaders  of  the  people  in  the 
great  work  of  reform.    We  would  have  them  teach  their 


li 


)  I 


fellow-men  on  those  rabjects  about  which  they  have  some 
positlTe  knowledge,  and  in  relation  to  which  it  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  that  they  be  informed.  We  would  hare 
them  teach  the  people  to  know  themselves,  to  do  their  own 
thinking,  to  form  their  own  opinions,  to  understand  the 
laws  of  their  own  nature,  and  the  conditions  on  which  the 
prosperity  and  happiness  of  human  beings  depend.  We 
would  place  them  on  a  level  with  the  rest  of  mankind, 
give  them  the  same  chances,  the  same  opportunities,  and 
let  them  depend  on  themselves,  instead  of  being  merely 
dependants  upon  others.  As  for  the  rest,  we  would  have 
them  expend  the  force  and  energy,  which  they  now  spend 
for  naught,  in  some  branch  of  trade  or  agriculture,  and 
thereby  make  themselves  a  blessing  to  the  world. 

**To  this,  or  something  like  this,  it  must  come  at  last 
The  people  will  not  always  suffer  themselves  to  be  led 
hoodwinked  to  their  own  destruction.  A  revolt  is  sure  to 
come,  and  when  it  does  eome,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the 
crimes  of  the  priesthood  against  humanity  will  not  be  too 
vividly  remembered  against  them,  and  that  the  sins  of  their 
predecessors  who  lived  In  the  dead  past  will  not  be  visited 
upon  those  who  exist  in  the  living  present." 

The  lesson  to  be  learned  from  all  this  clerical  sinfulness 
and  crime  is,  that  the  claim  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  is  ft 
protection  or  safeguard  against  licentiousness  and  corrup- 
tion, is  wholly  untrue,  for  the  proof  is  clear  that  there  is  no 
class  of  men  more  liable  to  yield  to  the  allurements  of  car- 
nal  pleasures  than  the  clergy.  So  far  from  their  religion 
being  a  safeguard  against  the  weaknesses  of  human  nature, 
it  is  the  means  of  exposing  them  to  the  blandishments  and 
temptations  which  the  good  sisters  so  frequently  lay  in  their 
way.  If  they  were  working  in  the  fields— plowing  and 
hoeing— or  in  the  shops  at  planing  and  filing,  they  would 
be  far  less  liable  to  be  overcome  by  temptations  than  by 
visiting  the  sisters  in  the  absence  of  their  husbands,  and 
tonverslng  with  them  on  tli«  lubject  of  "  true  inwardness." 


YfiB  mJUPHRBY'BSNNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


807 


You  are  incorrect  when  you  state  that  sinning  clergymen 
are  always  sought  out  by  the  Church  and  deposed  as  soon 
as  found  to  be  engaged  in  wrong  doing.  The  truth  often  is 
t^e  opposite  of  this.  Their  crimes  are  many  times  hushed 
up  and  smothered,  and  concealed  from  the  public  gase  as 
long  as  possible,  and  very  often  after  the  '*  guide  '*  has  been 
exposed,  he  has  removed  to  another  locality  and  resumed 
preaching  with  increased  fervency  and  mock-sanctity. 

What  if,  as  you  would  gladly  show,  Goethe  was  a  little 
wild  in  his  younger  days,  and  in  mature  life  lived  with  a 
woman—as  he  honestly  bslleVed  he  had  a  right  to  do — 
whom  no  priest  had  declared  to  be  bone  of  his  bone? 
What  if  the  love  between  Rousseau  and  Madame  de  Waiv 
rens  was  not  sanctioned  by  the  Church  t  What  if  Chester- 
ield  was  a  man  of  the  world  ?  What  if  somebody,  in  three 
lines,  has  accused  Voltaire  of  untruthfulness  ?  What  if 
Paine  did  act  the  part  of  friend  toward  Madame  Bonneville? 
What  if  John  Stuart  Mill  was  a  sincere  friend  to  a  lady  he 
had  reason  to  esteem  ?  What  If  Shelley,  In  the  days  of  his 
t^oyhood,  did  contract  a  union  which  he  afterwards  found 
uncongenial  and  Impracticable  ?  These  are  events  that  are 
occurring  in  the  world  every  day  of  our  lives,  and  though 
you  place  the  worst  possible  construction  upon  them  that 
your  enmity  can  prompt,  they  are  but  *'a  drop  in  the 
bucket "  when  compared  with  the  peccadilloes,  adulteries, 
and  crimes  of  priests  and  preachers  who  profess  to  be  sons 
of  God,  and  to  have  light  and  guidance  superior  to  men 
of  the  world.  As  Infidels,  we  have  no  saints  ;  we  make  no 
boast  of  holiness  or  heavenly-mindedness.  Our  highest 
object  is  to  discharge  our  duties  to  our  fellow-men,  doing 
naugbt  to  infringe  upon  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of 
others.  We  have  left  to  the  priestly  class  the  entire  busi- 
ness of  saintship;  yielded  to  them  the  monopoly  of  divine 
favor  and  aid,  and  a  pretty  mess  indeed  they  have  made  of 
it  They  have  made  the  terms  "  men  of  God  "  and  *'  fih«p- 
herds  of  the  flock  "  a  reproach  among  mankind. 


m 


in  THS  SmCPHBKT-BBIIirBTT  mSClTMlOll. 

Tott  would  fiin  bmT©  it  that  these  •enwitl  prieets  in  their 
lewd  practices  have  violated  the  instructions  of  the  Bible. 
Kot  so.  They  have  simply  followed  the  example  of  the 
favorites  of  the  Bible  God  They  have  done  nothing  more 
than  follow  the  common  practices  with  the  old  patriarchs 
Mid  favored  kings  of  God's  chosen  people. 

In  passing,  let  me  quote  a  passage  from  a  tribute  to  John 
Stuart  Hill  byMoncure  D.  Conway:  "There  was  blended 
in  his  intellectual  worls  other  that  required  a  yet  higher 
nature,  work  that  needed  preponderating  sensibilities,  a 
deep  human  sympathy,  a  rich  emotional  nature.  I  have 
said  Mr.  Mill  always  felt  what  he  thought— and  whenever 
he  spoke,  the  blood  in  his  cheeks  spoke  toa  But  there 
were  two  themes  only  upon  which,  as  he  spoke,  his  mind 
caught  flame  and  rose  into  passionate  emotion.  One  of 
them  was  when,  before  emancipation  had  taken  place  in 
America,  he  saw  humanity  enslaved  and  a  Republic  fettered 
by  the  same  chain  it  had  bound  around  the  negro.  The 
other  was  when  he  saw  women  struggling  to  break  the 
galling  political  and  social  chains,  inherited  from  ancienU, 
from  a  barbarous  past  Into  their  cause  he  entered  with 
an  enthusiasm  which  brought  again  the  age  of  chivalry, 
and  the  brave  efforts  he  made  to  secure  woman  from  heredi- 
tary wrong  made  him  in  our  prosaic  time  the  figure  of  St. 
George  rescuing  the  maiden  firom  the  dragon.  The  world 
has  felt  a  sUeut  sympathy,  as  in  the  French  town  he  sat, 
studied,  wrote,  at  a  window  overlooking  the  grave  that 
held  that  treasure  of  his  soul,  beside  whom  he  now  reposes; 
but  it  has  admired  as  it  saw  this  personal  devotion  to  one 
noble  woman  consecrating  him  to  the  cause  of  all  her  sis- 
ters. Ah,  ye  women,  who  amid  many  buffets  and  sneers 
are  striving  to  attain  a  truer  position  and  larger  Uf  e,  to  help 
ilian  ri^  the  suffering  world  to  a  higher  plane  —  ye 
women,  what  a  friend  have  you  loaf  Daughters  of 
itngland,  weep  not  for  him,  but  weep  for  yourselves 
|iid  for  yottf  children*'  (Memorial  ]>isco>in»a«  p^  ar,  21) 


iks  HUMPHEET-BBHKETT  DISOUSSIOK. 


Well  would  it  be  for  our  race  if  the  world  could  produce 
more  men  equal  in  virtue  and  intelligence  to  John  Stuart 
Mill  If  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  your  seventy  thousand 
clergymen  in  the  United  States  were  equal  to.  him,  what  a 
blessing  it  would  be  to  our  country  I  It  is  better  to  be  one 
such  man  than  a  thousand  flash-in-the-Pan-Presbyterian 
Councils  of  ministers,  with  their  forty-nine  modifications 
and  varieties. 

In  regard  to  Shelley,  in  justice  to  his  memory,  I  will  add 
to  what  I  have  said,  that  he  did  not  forsake  his  first  wife. 
He  made  a  settlement  upon  her,  corresponded  with  her 
during  his  travels,  called  upon  her  on  his  return,  and  did 
all  in  his  power  to  render  her  condition  comfortable. 
Their  separation  was  not  the  cause  of  her  suicide.  She 
indulged  in  peculiar  notions  of  love  which  her  spinster  sis- 
ter and  her  father  strongly  condemned,  and  he  turned  her 
from  his  door.  In  a  fit  of  grief  at  her  treatment,  she  threw 
herself  into  the  river.  Shelley  was  greatly  grieved  in  con- 
sequence. His  second  marriage  was  considerably  hastened 
by  the  advice  of  Mr.  Godwin,  father  of  his  second  wife  (see 
Keegan  Paul's  Letters  and  Peacock  on  Shelley,  as  given  in 
the  TTorW  of  July  15, 1877). 

You  claim  to  be  unable  to  find  anythiug  in  Thiers  or 
Chambers  indicating  that  Robespierre  was  a  Christian.  I 
am  not  particularly  anxious  to  show  him  to  have  been  a 
Christian,  but  that  while  he  was  the  head  and  front  of 
the  Reign  of  Terror  he  assuredly  was  not  an  anti-relig- 
ionist, but  a  wild  political  leader,  who  came  to  the  sur- 
face under  a  peculiar  combination  of  circumstances,  and 
was  not  a  man  really  so  bad  at  heart  as  many  of  his  harsh 
and  tyrannical  acts  would  indicate.  The  French  Revolu- 
tion was  brought  about  by  the  tyranny  and  corruptions  of 
the  royal  family,  the  nobles,  and  the  clergy.  Michelet  states 
the  case  clearly,  thus  :  *'The  clergy  had  so  well  kept  and 
augmented  the  property  of  the  poor,  that  at  length  it  com- 
prised one-fifth  of  the  lands  of  the  Kingdom  "  (Lewes'  Life 


tio 


TXOB  HU1CFIIEET>V£KN£TT  DISCUSBIOH. 


of  llobespierre).  The  remainder  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
nobles.  It  is  not  strange  t>»at,,  under  this  state  of  things, 
all  the  land  and  wealth  of  the  nation  engrossed  by  the 
nobles  and  the  priesthood,  the  oppressed  masses  should 
revolt  It  was  but  humai>  nature.  Even  a  worm,  when  trod 
upon,  will  turn  and  show  resentment  We  have  recently 
had  in  our  own  country  sad  proofs  of  this  tendency.  We 
have  seen  the  working  classes  uniting  in  mobs  and  reck- 
lessly destroying  millions  of  dollars*  worth  of  property.  It 
was  because  they  were  without  employment  and  were  suffer* 
ing  for  want  of  necessary  food.  It  was  not  because  they 
are  Infidels,  or  unbelievers  in  the  prevailing  system  of  re^ 
ligion.  It  was  the  rebellion  of  human  nature  against 
oppression.  It  was  the  same  in  the  French  Revolution, 
and  it  is  not  strange  in  the  consequent  reaction  that  ensued 
that  excesses  were  committed.  It  was  not  because  the 
actors  in  the  fearful  tragedy  were  unbelievers  or  Free- 
thinkers, and  it  is  very  unfair  in  you  and  your  Christian 
friends  to  be  continually  making  that  false  charge.  True, 
the  Goddess  of  Reason  was  set  up  by  a  clique  to  be  wor* 
shiped,  but,  in  the  ruling  frenzy  of  the  hour,  Reason  wae 
worshiped  and  followed  very  indifferently. 

As  to  Robespierre's  political  and  theological  character, 
we  can  probably  get  as  clear  a  view  of  it  from  his  own 
words  as  from  any  other  source.  *'  It  is  true,**  said  he, 
**that  our  most  dangerous  enemies  are  the  impure  rem- 
uiuits  of  the  race  of  our  tyrants.  I  vote  in  my  heart  that 
the  race  of  tyrants  disappear  from  the  earth;  but  can  I  shut 
my  eyes  to  the  state  of  my  country  so  completely  as  to 
believe  that  this  event  would  suffice  to  extinguish  the  flames 
of  those  conspiiacies  that  are  consuming  us.  ...  Is  it 
true  another  cause  of  our  calamities  is  fanaticism  T  Fanat^ 
icism;  it  is  dying:  nay,  I  may  say  it  is  dead.  In  directing, 
for  some  days  past,  all  our  energies  against  it,  are  we  not 
diverting  our  attention  from  real  dangers  7"  Grappling  at 
onee  with  the  q^-veition  of  Religion,  Robespierre  thus  pro- 


THS  HUlfPHBBT-BBNNETT  DISCUSIIOH. 


811 


ceeded:  '*  Let  citizens,  animated  by  a  firm  zeal,  deposit  on 
the  altar  of  the  count.7  the  useless  and  pompous  monu- 
ments of  superstition,  that  they  be  rendered  subservient  to 
the  triumphs  of  liberty;  the  country  and  reason  smile  at 
these  offerings;  but  what  right  have  aristocracy  and  hy- 
pocrisy to  mingle  their  influence  with  civism  ?  What  right 
have  men  hitherto  unknown  in  the  career  of  the  Revolution 
to  seek  amidst  all  these  events  the  means  of  usurping  a 
false  popularity,  of  hurrying  the  very  patriots  into  false 
measures,  and  of  throwing  disturbance  and  discord  among 
us  f  What  right  have  they  to  violate  the  liberty  of  religion 
in  the  name  of  liberty,  and  to  attack  fanaticism  ?  Wliat 
right  have  they  to  make  the  solemn  homage  paid  to  pure 
truth  degenerate  into  wearisome  and  ridiculous  farces  f  . 
»  .  It  has  been  supposed  that  in  accepting  the  civic  offer- 
ings, the  Convention  has  proscribed  the  Catholic  worship. 
No,  the  Convention  has  taken  no  such  step,  and  never  will 
take  it.  Its  intention  is  to  uphold  the  liberty  of  worship 
which  it  has  proclaimed,  and  to  suppress  at  the  same  time 
all  those  who  shall  abuse  it  to  disturb  public  order.  It  will 
not  allow  the  peaceful  ministers  of  the  diffierent  religions  to 
be  persecuted,  and  it  will  punish  them  severely  whenever 
ILey  shall  dare  to  avail  themselves  of  their  functions  to 
mislead  the  citizens,  or  to  arm  prejudice  or  royalism  against 
the  republic.  .  .  .  There  are  men  who  would  fain  go 
further,  who  upon  the  pretext  of  destroying  superstition, 
would  fain  make  a  sort  of  religion  of  Atheism  itself.  Every 
philosopher,  every  individual,  is  at  liberty  to  adopt  on  that 
subject  what  opinion  he  pleases;  whoever  would  make  a 
crime  of  this  is  a  madman;  but  the  public  man,  the  legisla- 
tor, would  be  a  hundred  times  more  insane  who  should 
adopt  such  a  system.  The  National  Convention  abhors 
it  The  Convention  is  not  a  maker  of  books  and  of  sys- 
tems. It  is  a  political  and  popular  body.  Atheism  is  arts- 
iocratie.  The  idea  of  a  great  Being,  who  watches  over  op- 
pressed innocence,  and  who  punishes  triumphant  guiit  is 


f 


sit 


TBS  BXJMPHBET-BBNSfBTT  DISCUaSIOir. 


TBI  SUMPHRBT-BBNNEIT  DIBOUflSlOB. 


818 


qnfte  popular.  The  people,  the  unfortiinate,  applaud  me. 
If  there  are  any  who  censure  me,  they  must  belong  to  the 
rich  and  to  the  guilty.  I  have  been  from  my  college  years 
aTery  indifferent  Catholic}  but  shall  ncTer  be  a  cold  friend, 
or  aa  unfaithful  defender  of  humanity.  I  am  on  that 
account  only  the  more  attached  to  the  moral  and  political 
Ideas  which  I  have  here  expounded  to  you.  JfOod  did  not 
exiH,  a  would  iehaotfe  man  to  invent  him  "  (Thiers*  French 
Revolution,  vol.  ii,  pp.  875.  876).  I  have  thus  quoted  this 
religious  politician  at  some  length  toi  give  a  fair  presenta- 
tion of  his  views  and  motives,  deeming  this  fairer  than 
mezely  to  quote  a  line  or  two  here  and  there  as  is  your 
style. 

On  page  880,  vol.  ii,  Thiers  thus  speaks:  "The  policy  of 
Robespierre  and  the  Government  was  well  known.  The 
energy  with  which  this  policy  had  been  manifested  intimi- 
dated the  restless  promoters  of  the  new  worship,  and  they 
began  to  think  of  retracting  and  of  retracing  their  steps. 
.  .  .  The  Convention  declared  on  its  part  that  it  had 
never  intended  by  its  decrees  to  shackle  religious  liberty, 
and  it  forbade  the  plate  still  remaining  in  the  churches  to  b« 
touclied,  since  the  exchequer  had  no  further  need  of  that 
kind  of  aid.  Prom  that  day  the  indecent  farces  performed 
by  the  people  ceased  in  Paris,  and  the  ceremonies  of  tha 
worship  of  Reason,  which  had  afforded  them  so  much 
amusement,  were  abolished." 

Touching  Robespierre's  religious  sentiments,  I  will  quota 
a  few  passages  from  Lewes'  Life  of  that  individual:  •'  I  at- 
tribute it  to  his  sincere  religious  convictions,  rather  than 
to  any  political  foresight,  such  as  Michelet  discerns,  that  he 
should  have  relied  upon  the  lower  clergy  (a  powerful  body 
of  80,000  priests)  as  well  as  the  Jacobins  for  his  support "  (p. 
148).  '*  On  the  16th  of  June  he  asked  the  Assembly  to  pro- 
vide for  the  subsistence  of  aged  ecclesiastics  who  had  no 
benefices  or  pensions"  (p.  148).  He  thus  quotes  Robes. 
Pierre's  words:  "flow  could  I  be  equal  to  struggles  which 


are  above  human  strength,  if  I  had  not  elevated  my  soul  to 
God  "  (p.  237).  French  journalists  of  that  period  thus  speak 
of  Robespierre:  "  He  is  a  kind  of  priest  who  has  his  devo- 
tees, his  Marys  and  his  Magdalens. "  "  He  has  all  the  char- 
acteristics of  a  founder  of  religion  ;  he  has  a  reputation  for 
sanctity."  "  Robespierre  is  a  priest,  and  never  will  be  any 
thing  else."  **  He  is  a  priest  who  wishes  to  become  a  God." 
On  the  7th  of  May,  1794,  when  in  the  height  of  his  power, 
Robespierre  proposed  the  following  decree:  "Article  L— The 
French  people  recognize  the  existence  of  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing and  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  Article  IL— They 
acknowledge  that  the  worship  of  the  Supreme  Being  is 
one  of  the  duties  of  man  "  (Thiers',  vol.  iii.  p.  13).  By  these 
extracts  it  is  clear  that  Robespierre  was  no  Freethinker  or 
Infidel.  He  was  an  ardent  religionist,  and  almost  a  Chris- 
tian. He  acknowledged  himself  a  Catholic,  though  an 
"indifferent"  one. 

Had  it  been  desirable  on  your  part  to  claim  Robespierre 
as  a  Christian,  you  have  far  more  reason  for  doing  so  than 
for  several  whom  you  have  claimed.  He  was  far  more 
religious— far  more  a  believer  in  the  dogmas  of  Christianity 
—than  were  Franklin,  Washington,  or  Jefferson. 

Of  course,  there  were  Freethinkers  in  those  days,  and 
many  of  them  were  active  in  the  measures  that  character- 
ized the  time,  but  they  suffered  quite  as  severely  from  the 
work  of  the  guillotine  as  any  class,  and  Thomas  Paine 
escaped  by  the  merest  chance.  In  the  National  Con- 
vention, which  ordered  and  sanctioned  so  many  executions, 
a  majority  were  believers  in  Christianity.  By  this  it  is  easy 
to  see  how  unjust  and  untruthful  is  your  effort  to  throw 
the  odium  of  the  wild  conduct  of  those  in  power  upon  the 
unbelievers.  To  show  the  truth  of  the  whole  business  I 
have  hardly  occupied  too  much  space.  This  dishonest 
chai'ge  against  the  opposers  of  the  theological  dogmas  of 
thai  era  has  so  often  been  made  by  your  sort  of  people  that 
it  AS  ame  the  lie  was  nailed  to  the  mast 


tii 


vtl 


tidl  MmlPHRtT-BttNKVrT  DMCtmiOV. 


*CBB  BUKFHfiST-BSMNXTT  DZSCfUBSlOH. 


815 


I  made  iio  special  effort  to  conyfct  the  Jews  of  cannibal- 
ism, but  merely  called  attention  to  such  texts  in  the  Mhh 
as  went  to  show  that  they  not  only  practiced  hnman  sacri- 
llce  bnt  cannibalism  also.  I  will  also  add  that  it  has  been 
firged  by  writers  more  distinguished  than  either  of  ns  that 
the  Bible  does  show  that  the  Jews  were  cannibals.  Moses 
told  them  that  unless  they  observed  his  ceremonies  they 
should  not  only  have  the  itch,  but  that  mothers  should  eat 
their  children.  Eseklel  makes  a  similar  threat  in  chapter 
zzxix.  He  tells  them  that  Ood  will  not  only  ^use  them 
to  eat  the  horses  of  their  enemies,  but  the  horsemen  and 
the  lest  of  the  warriors.  Voltaire  asked  the  question: 
**  Why  should  not  the  Jews  have  been  cannibals  f  It  was 
the  only  thing  wanting  to  make  the  people  of  Qod  the 
most  abominable  people  upon  earth."  That  the  Jews  did 
eat  human  bodies  at  the  time  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  we 
have  the  authority  of  Joaephus.  I  give,  however,  the  facta 
for  what  they  are  worth,  and  it  must  bo  admitted  that  the 
texts  of  Scripture  quoted,  and  several  others,  squint  very 
strongly  of  Hebrew  cannibalism.  That  they  were  a  race  of 
aemibarbarians  I  have  sufficiently  shown,  and  that  Herodo- 
tus did  not  mention  them  when  writing  his  history  of  Syria, 
4ft  which  Palestine  formed  a  part,  is  most  clear.  If  he 
mentioned  it  at  all  it  would  have  been  when  he  was  writing 
his  account  of  what  he  saw  when  in  that  country.  It  is  well 
known  that  some  of  his  histories  have  been  lost,  but  his 
history  of  Syria  was  not  one  of  them.  His  writings  relative 
to  Rome  might  have  been  among  the  lost  books. 

Your  attempt  to  show  that  Infidels  have  died  recantlnf 
snd  in  terror  is  a  complete  failure.  It  requires  but  little 
talent  to  repeat  that  stale  slander  about  Voltaire's  recanta- 
tion. Why  do  you  not  prove  it  and  thus  get  the  thousand 
dollars  in  gold  which  Col.  logersoll  has  offered  to  any  man 
who  will  prove  it  The  N.  Y.  OUener,  the  old  war-horse 
of  Preabjrterianism,  it  is  said,  has  accepted  the  challenge  and 
will  attempt  to  prove  that  Voltaire  did  recant    Perhaps  you 


can  enter  into  partnership  with  the  Observer  and  get  at  least 
half  the  money.  A  similar  amount  was  offered  by  the 
same  party  if  it  is  proved  that  Thomas  Paine  recanted  on 
his  death-bed.  Here  is  an  excellent  opportunity  for  you  to 
make  another  thousand  dollars  in  gold.  Col.  Ingersoll  is 
good  for  the  promises  he  makes,  and  two  thousand  dollars 
would  be  a  very  comfortable  sum  to  make  these  hard  times, 
especially  if  it  can  be  done  easily  and  in  the  interest  of  a 
God  who  would  be  greatly  relieved  and  glorified  thereby. 
Remember,  though,  the  matter  must  be  proved.  The  stale 
slanders  and  falsehoods  of  Christian  clergymen,  which  for 
nearly  fourscore  years  have  been  peddled  out  from  the 
pulpit  for  the  delectation  of  the  credulous  faithful  ones  of 
the  flock  will  not  answer  the  purpose.  It  must  be  truth 
and  not  lies. 

You  do  injustice  to  the  memory  of  Hume  by  attempting 
to  show  that  he  died  ignobly  and  improperly.  What  a  deck 
of  cards  in  his  hand  could  amount  to,  more  than  any  other 
pasteboard,  is  not  very  clear.  They  might  have  served  his 
purpose  equally  as  well  as  a  prayer-book,  a  catechism, 
a  confession  of  faith,  or  even  a  Testament.  The  insinua- 
tion which  you  throw  out  is  what  I  object  to.  Perhaps  he 
should  have  had  a  copy  of  your  *^  Hell  and  Damnation  "  in 
his  hand.  No  doubt  the  mind  of  the  dying  man  would  have 
been  wonderfully  cheered  by  its  soothing  tone.  Hume  died 
like  a  man  and  a  philosopher.  In  the  sequel  to  his  Auto- 
biography is  a  letter  written  by  Br.  Adam  Smith,  author  of 
**  The  Wealth  of  Nations,"  addressed  to  William  Strathan, 
Esq.,  giving  an  account  of  the  last  moments  of  Hume.  In 
this  letter  Dr.  Smith  gives  a  copy  of  one  which  he  received 
from  Dr.  Blaci^  Hume^s  physician  and  friend,  the  day  after 
Hume's  death,  as  follows:  "Edinburgh,  Aug.  26,  1776. 
DeofrBir:  Yesterday,  about  four  o'clock,  Mr.  Hume  ex- 
pired. The  near  approach  of  his  death  became  evident  in 
the  night  between  Thursday  and  Friday,  when  his  disease 
became  excessive  and  soon  weakened  him  so  much  that  he 


^Xt. 


TBM  HUXPOBST-BSHmTT  DUCITflnOir. 


THB  mTMPHRET-BBNNETT  DIfiC1T88I<»l. 


817 


\*I 


ccmld  not  rise  out  of  bed.  He  oontliiiied  to  the  last  per- 
fectly eensible,  and  free  from  mncli  pain  or  feelings  of  dis- 
tress. He  nerer  dropped  the  smallest  expression  of  impa- 
tience, but  when  he  had  occasion  to  speak  to  the  people 
about  him,  he  always  did  it  with  affection  and  tenderness. 
•  .  When  he  became  yery  weak,  it  cost  him  a  great  effort 
to  speak,  aod  he  died  in  such  a  happy  composure  of  mind 
that  nothing  could  exceed  it."  Br.  Adam  Smith  closed  his 
letter  in  these  words:  "  Upon  the  whole,  I  have  always  con- 
sidered him,  both  in  his  life-time,  and  since  his  death,  as  vp- 
preaching  as  near  to  the  ideal  of  the  perfectly  wise  and  virtu- 
ous man  as  perhaps  the  nature  of  human  frailty  will  admit. " 
In  the  face  of  such  testimony  as  this,  I  will  submit  it  to 
yourself  and  to  our  numerous  readers,  whether  insinuation 
about  the  '*  deck  of  cards  "  is  not  simply  contemptible. 

Tou  do  nearly  equal  injustice  to  the  memory  of  Thomas 
Hobbes,  by  attempting  to  show  that  he  died  an  unhappy 
death,  by  saying  "he  contemplated  the  ineyitable  with 
trepidation."  Lord  Clarendon  describes  the  personal  char- 
acter of  Hobbes  as  "one  for  whom  he  always  had  a  great 
esteem  as  a  man,  who  besides  his  eminent  parts  of  learning 
and  knowledge,  hath  always  been  looked  upon  as  a  man  of 
propriety,  and  a  life  free  from  scandal,'*  and  thus  he  died. 
Collins,  in  his  Biography  of  Hobbes,  thus  explains  his  nat- 
ural timidity  of  character:  "  He  was  naturally  of  a  timid 
disposiiion;  this  was  the  result  of  an  accident  which  caused 
his  premature  birth,  and  being  besides  of  a  reserved  char- 
ter, he  was  ill-fitted  to  meet  the  physical  rebuffs  of  the 
world.  It  is  said  he  was  so  afraid  of  his  personal  safety 
that  he  objected  to  being  left  alone  in  an  empty  house;  this 
charge  is  to  some  extent  true,  but  w«  must  look  to  the  miti- 
gating circumstances  of  the  case.  He  was  a  feeble  man, 
turned  the  age  of  three  score  and  ten,  with  all  the  clergy  of 
England  hounding  on  their  dupes  to  murder  the  old  philos- 
opher because  he  had  exposed  their  dogmas.  It  was  but  a 
few  yean  before  that  Protestants  and  Papists  complimented 


Moh  other's  religion  by  burning  those  which  were  the 
weakest,  and  long  after  Hobbes*  death,  Protestants  mur- 
dered, ruined,  disgraced  and  placed  in  the  pillory  Dissen- 
ters and  Catholics  alike,  and  Thomas  Hobbes  had  positive 
proof  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Church  of  England 
to  bum  Mm  alive  at  the  stake,  a  martyr  for  his  opinions. 
This,  then,  was  a  sufficient  justification  for  Hobbes  feeling 
afraid,  and  instead  of  its  being  thrown  out  as  a  taunt  at  this 
illustrious  Freethinker,  it  is  a  standing  stigma  on  those  who 
would  reenact  the  tragedy  of  persecution,  if  public  senti- 
ment would  allow  it "  (page  6). 

It  has  little  connection  with  the  subject  under  discussion, 
how  Robespierre  acted  when  he  was  arrested  at  the  Hotel 
de  Yille,  and  whether  he  attempted  suicide;  whether  Hen- 
riot  got  drunk;  whether  Los  Basas  shot  himself  with  a  pis- 
tol; whether  Cauthon  cut  his  bosom  with  a  knife,  and 
whether  Bt.  Just  begged  his  comrades  to  shoot  him.  These 
were  not  known  or  distinguished  as  Freethinkers,  and 
neither  of  them  acted  in  the  way  named  because  they  re- 
canted Infidelity.  If  you  have  not  better  proofs  of  Infidels 
recanting  their  views  upon  their  death-beds,  your  case  is 
weak  indeed,  and  I  would  advise  you  as  a  friend  to  never 
make  the  charge  again. 

Why  did  you  not  represent  Edward  Gibbon,  who  has 
been  classed  as  an  Infidel,  as  having  died  carousing^ 
gambling,  cursing,  or  trembling  with  terror  ?  I  should, 
however,  be  inclined  to  take  the  statement  of  Lord  Shaftes- 
bury, the  confidential  friend  of  Gibbon,  as  given  in  the 
sequel  to  the  autobiography  of  the  latter.  He  wrote  as  fol- 
lows: "To  the  last  he  [Gibbon]  preserved  his  senses,  and 
when  he  could  no  longer  speak,  his  servant  having  asked 
him  a  question,  he  made  a  sign  to  him  that  he  understood  him. 
He  was  quiet,  tranquil,  and  did  not  stir ;  his  eyes  half  shut. 
About  a  quarter  of  an  hour  before  one  he  ceased  to  breathe. 
The  volet  de  ehambre  observed  that  he  did  not,  at  any  time, 
evince  the  least  sign  of  alarm  or  apprehension  of  death.*' 


8ta 


TSX  IHmFH»«Y-BEra«TT  DMCUMIOir. 


fRB  HUMFlUUnr*  BBVNITT  I>I8Ct788IOir. 


Sit 


-41 


II   - 
1 1' 


The  untnithfulneas  of  Christian  rcpiesentations  rc3atiT« 
to  the  death  of  Infidels  may  be  instanced  in  the  attempt  to 
oast  insinuations  upon  the  death  of  Mirabeau,  the  Atheist, 
by  the  Key.  J.  P.  Newman  who  put  it  in  this  way :  *'  The 
dying  words  of  Mirabeau  must  be  the  dying  words  of  eyery 
man  who  relies  upon  science  rather  than  religion—*  Cover 
me  with  flowers,  banquet  me  with  music,  delight  me  with 
perfume,  for  to  die  is  to  take  a  leap  in  the  dark.'  "  In  the 
American  Cyclopedia  it  is  narrated  In  this  way:  "After  a 
night  of  terrible  soflering.  at  the  dawn  of  day  he  addressd 
Cabanis,  his  physician,  *My  friend,  I  shall  die  to-day. 
When  one  has  come  to  such  a  Juncture  ther#  '^mains  only 
one  thing  to  do,  that  is  to  be  perfumed,  cro^med  with  flow- 
ers, and  surrounded  with  music,  in  order  to  enter  sweetly 
into  that  slumber  from  which  there  is  no  awakening.* 
He  ordered  his  bed  to  be  brought  near  the  window,  and 
looked  with  rapture  on  the  brightness  of  the  sun  and  the 
freshness  of  the  garden.  His  death  was  mourned  by  a 
whole  nation.  Every  one  felt  that  the  ruling  Spirit  of  the 
Revolution  had  passed  away."  The  reverend  gentleman's 
version  had  just  enough  truth  in  it  to  enable  one  to  deter- 
mine positively  the  falsity  of  the  very  point  he  wished  to 
emphasize,  namely,  the  *'  leap  in  the  dark."  It  is  the  dis- 
honest eff'ort  of  Christian  clergymen  to  make  it  appear  that 
unbelievers  die  terrible  deaths;  and  you  are  do  exception  to 
the  rule.  But  if  you  fail  to  make  out  a  caw,  could  these 
unbelievers  at  the  hour  of  death  be  induced  to  believe  for 
a  moment  your  delightful  doctrine  of  Hell  and  Damnation, 
it  might  enable  you  to  talk  with  more  truth  about  the  terror 
in  which  you  would  gladly  make  it  appear  that  they  have 

died. 

Your  quotation  of  the  words  of  Paul  as  being  his  dying 
words  are  hardly  honestly  quoted.  Yon  know  very  well 
that  he  was  not  dying  when  he  made  those  utterances,  but 
was  simply  writing  a  letter  to  his  friend  Timothy,  and 
might  have  been  yean  from  the  liour  of  death.    Whea  he 


leally  did  breathe  his  last  he  may  have  been  as  full  of 
terror  as  was  the  founder  of  Christianity  himself  when  he 
was  forced  to  face  the  King  of  Terrors.  Many  asealous  Chris- 
tians at  the  time  of  death  might  truthfully  have  said:  *'I 
have  fought  the  bloody  fight;  I  have  finished  my  murder- 
ous course;  I  have  caused  many  poor  heretics  to  bite  the 
dust.  I  have  kept  the  faith  that  our  Church  proclaims, 
and  put  to  death  scores  of  those  who  presumed  to  deny  it. 
Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  unrighteous- 
ness, or  a  garment  of  terrible  damnation,  which  I  liaye 
Justly  earned." 

Brother  Humphrey,  you  will  have  to  try  again  before 
you  can  make  it  appear  that  the  deaths  of  Infidels  will  not 
compare  favorably  with  those  of  Christians. 

You  are  courteous  enough  to  speak  of  D'Holbach  as  having 
**  gruTUsd  \mdeT  the  burden  of  showing  that  Atheism  fur- 
nished the  strongest   motives  for  virtue   and  justice.** 
Would  you  represent  him  as  a  hog,  that  he  should  "  grunt**  T 
Let  me  quote  from  his  works  a  few  specimens  of  his 
grunU,  that  it  may  be  seen  whether  he  grunted  well  or  not: 
"  Be  just,  because  equity  is  the  support  of  human  society. 
Be  good,  because  goodness  connects  all  hearts  in  adamant- 
ine bonds.    Be  indulgent,  because,  feeble  thyself,  thou 
livest  with  beings  who  partake  of  thy  weakness.   Be  gentle, 
because  mildness  attracts  attention.    Be  thankful,  because 
gratitude   feeds  benevolence,    nourishes    generosity.    Be 
modest,  because  haughtiness  is  disgusting  to  beings  at  all 
times  well  with  themselves.     Forgive   injuries,  because 
revenge  perpetuates  hatred.    Do  good  to  him  who  in^ureth 
thee,  in  order  to  show  thyself  more  noble  than  he  is;  to 
make  a  friend  of  him  who  was  once  thine  enemy.    Be  re- 
served in  thy  demeanor,  temperate  in  thy  enjoyment,  chaste 
in  thy  pleasures,  because  voluptuousness  begets  we2»rlness, 
intemperance    engenders    disease,  f reward   manners   are 
revolting;  excess  at  all  times  relaxes  the  springs  of  thy 
machwAe,  will  ultimately  destroy  thy  being,  and  Teadet 


TBI  OOIIFHSBT-BXIINBTT  OI8Ct788ION. 


TTttB  HtTMPHREY-BKNNETT  DISCrSSION. 


831 


thee  hateful  to  thyself  and  coctemptible  to  othera.  .  •  . 
In  short,  be  a  man;  be  a  sensible,  ntkmal  being;  be  a 
faithful  husband,  a  tender  father,  an  equitable  master,  a 
sealous  ciliren.  Labor  to  seire  thy  country  by  thy  prow- 
ess,  by  thy  tolents,  by  thy  industry;  above  all.  by  thy 
virtues.  Participate  with  thine  associates  those  gifts  which 
nature  has  bestowed  upon  thee.  Diffuse  happiness  among 
thy  fellow-mortals;  inspire  thy  fellow-citizens  with  content 
Spread  joy  over  all  those  who  approach  thee,  that  the 
•phere  of  their  actions,  enlivened  by  thy  kindness,  illum- 
ined by  benevolence,  may  react  upon  thyself.  Be  assured 
that  the  man  who  makes  others  happy  cannot  himself  be 
miserable.  ...  A  life  so  spent  will  each  moment  be 
marked  by  the  serenity  of  thine  own  mind,  by  the  affections 
of  the  beings  who  environ  thee,  will  enable  thee  to  rise,  a 
contented,  satisfied  guest,  from  the  general  feast,  conduct 
thee  gently  down  the  declivity  of  life,  lead  thee  peuceably 
to  the  period  of  thy  days,  for  die  thou  must;  but  already 
thou  wUt  survive  thyself  in  thought;  thou  wilt  always  live 
in  the  memory  of  thy  frieodfl;  in  the  grateful  recollections 
of  those  beings  whose  comforts  have  been  augmented  by 
thy  friendly  attentions;  the  virtues  will  beforehand  have 
erected  to  thy  form  an  imperishable  monument  If  Heaven 
occupied  itself  with  thee,  it  would  feel  satisfied  with  thy 
conduct  when  it  shall  thus  have  contented  the  earth  '*  (Sys- 
tem of  Nature,  p.  884).  I  could  continue  ''grunts"  as 
good  as  those  to  fill  hundreds  of  ordinary  pages.  It  strikes 
me  that  Jesus,  Peter,  or  Paul  never  "  grunted  "  out  much 
better  or  more  sensible  moral  instructions  than  these. 
Seriously,  my  friend,  do  you  not  think  you  belittle  your- 
idf  and  injure  your  cause  by  calling  such  beautiful  senti- 
ments "grunU"? 

I  perceive  that  you  are  anxious  to  extricate  your  patron 
saint,  Calvin,  from  the  very  unenviable  repuUtion  which 
he  enjoys.  You  ring  the  changes  on  "  Calvin  burned  Ser- 
vettts*'  with  consammite  skUl,  but  lam  sorry  for  you  that 


you  are  unable  to  relieve  him  from  the  disgraceful  dilemma 
in  which  history  places  him.  I  see  that  honesty  forces  you 
to  admit  nearly  all  I  claimed  against  him:  1.  That  Calvin 
believed  in  burning  heretics — that  is,  those  who  did  not 
square  their  theological  lines  according  to  his  standard;  2. 
That  his  followers  and  co-reformers  entertained  the  same 
views;  8.  That  Calvin  instigated  the  arrest  of  Servetus. 
Toa  are  quite  right  in  confessing  that  the  transaction  was  a 
dark  blot  on  the  character  of  Calvin.  The  facts  are,  Calvin 
not  only  caused  the  arrest  of  Servetus,  but  he  urged  on  the 
trial.  The  accusation  was  in  his  own  handwriting.  He 
was  at  the  head  of  the  Theocracy,  or  Council,  of  two  hun- 
deed,  and  it  is  idle  to  claim  that  he  could  not  have  prevent- 
ed the  execution.  Calvin  and  Servetus  were  enemies,  and 
when  Calvin  had  the  latter  in  his  power  he  was  the  last 
man  to  loosen  his  grasp.   */ 

IngersoU  describes  the  character  of  Calvin  so  graphically 
and  forcibly,  in  connection  with  this  affair  and  others, 
that  I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  him:  *'  This  man  [Cal- 
vin] forged  five  fetters  for  the  brain.  These  fetters  he 
called  points.  That  is  to  say,  predestination,  particular 
redemption,  total  depravity,  irresistible  grace,  and  the  per- 
severance of  the  saints.  About  the  neck  of  each  follower 
lie  put  a  collar  bristling  with  these  five  points.  The  pres- 
ence of  all  these  points  on  the  collar  is  still  the  test  of 
orthodoxy  in  the  Church  he  founded.  This  man  when  in 
the  flush  of  youth  was  elected  to  the  office  of  preacher  in 
Geneva.  He  at  once,  in  unison  with  Farel,  drew  up  a  con- 
densed statement  of  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  and  all  citi- 
zens of  Geneva,  on  pain  of  banishment,  were  compelled  to 
take  an  oath  that  they  belived  this  statement  Of  this  pro- 
ceeding Calvin  very  innocently  remarked  that  it  produced 
great  satisfaction.  A  man  named  Caroli  had  the  audacity 
to  dispute  with  Calvin.    For  this  outrage  he  was  banished. 

"To  show  you  what  great  subjects  occupied  the  attention 
of  Calvin,  it  is  only  necessaiy  to  state  that  he  furiously  dia- 


TBS  aUHrflRKT-lllBMKKTT  XHSCOBSIOII. 


TRB  HUMPHBBT-BBNNBTT  DISGUaUON. 


323 


i 


I 


cussed  the  question  as  to  whether  the  sacramental  bread 
should  be  leayened  or  unleayened.  He  drew  up  laws  regur- 
hiing  the  cut  of  the  citizens'  clothes  and  prescribing  their 
diet,  and  all  tht>se  whose  garments  were  not  in  the  Calvia 
fashion  were  refused  the  sacrament.  At  last  the  people  be- 
coming  tired  of  this  petty  theological  tyranny^  banished 
Calvin.  In  a  few  years,  howoTer,  he  was  recalled^  and  re- 
ceiTed  with  great  enthusiasm.  After  this  he  was  supreme,. 
and  the  will  of  Calyin  became  the  law  of  Geneva.  Under 
this  benign  administration  James  Gruet  was  beheaded  be- 
cause  he  had  written  some  profane  Terses.  The  slightest 
word  against  Calvin  or  his  absurd  doctrines  were  punished 
as  a  crime. 

"In  1553  a  man  was  tried  at  Vienne  by  the  Catholic 
Church  for  heresy.  He  was  convicted  and  sentenced  to 
death  by  burning.  It  was  apparently  his  good  fortune  to 
escape.  Pursued  by  the  sleuth-hounds  of  intolerance,  ha 
fled  to  Geneva  for  protection.  A  dove  flying  from  hawks 
sought  safety  in  the  nest  of  a  vulture.  This  fugitive  from 
the  cruelty  of  Rome  asked  shelter  from  Calvin,  who  had 
written  a  book  in  favor  of  religious  toleration.  Servetus 
had  forgotten  that  this  book  was  written  by  Calvin  when  in 
the  minority  ;  that  it  was  written  in  weakness  to  be  forgot- 
ten in  power ;  that  it  was  produced  by  fear  instead  of  prin- 
ciple. He  did  not  know  that  Calvin  had  caused  his  arrest 
at  Yienne,  in  France,  and  had  sent  a  copy  of  his  work, 
which  was  claimed  to  be  blasphemous,  to  the  archbishop. 
He  did  not  then  know  that  the  Protestant  Calvin  was  actiug 
as  one  of  the  detectives  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  had 
beoa  instrumental  in  proving  his  conviction  for  heresy. 
Ignorant  of  this  unspeakable  infamy,  he  put  himself  in  the 
power  of  this  very  Calvin.  The  maker  of  the  Presbyterian 
creed  caused  the  fugitive  Servetus  to  be  arrested  for  blas- 
phemy. He  was  tried,  Calvin  was  bis  accuser.  He  was 
convicted  and  condemned  to  death  by  fire.  On  the  morn- 
ing of  the  fatal  day,  Calvin  saw  him,  and  Servetus,  the  vio^ 


tim  asked  forgiveness  of  Calvin,  the  murderer.  Servetus 
was  bound  to  the  stake  and  the  fagots  were  lighted.  The 
wind  carried  the  flames  somewhat  away  from  his  body,  eo 
that  he  slowly  roasted  for  hours.  Vainly  he.  implored  a 
speedy  death.  At  last  the  flames  climbed  around  hia  form ; 
through  smoke  and  fire  his  murderers  saw  a  white,  heroic 
face.  And  then  they  watched  until  a  man  became  a  charred 
and  shriveled  mass. 

"Liberty  was  banished  from  (Jeneva,  and  nothing  bat 
Presbyterianism  was  left.  Honor,  justice,  mercy,  reason 
and  charity  were  all  exiled;  but  the  five  points  of  predeaii-. 
nation,  particular  redemption,  irresistible  grace,  total  de- 
pravity and  the  certain  perseverance  of  the  saints  renaained 
instead.  Calvin  founded  a  little  theocracy,  modeled  after 
the  Old  Testament,  and  succeeded  in  erecting  the  mosi  de- 
testable government  that  ever  existed,  except  the  one  from 
which  it  was  copied. 

"Against  all  this  intolerance  one  man,  a  minister,  raised 
his  voice.  The  name  of  this  man  should  never  be  forgot- 
ten. It  was  Castellio.  This  brave  man  had  the  goodness 
and  the  courage  to  declare  the  iauocence  of  honest  error. 
He  was  the  first  of  the  so  called  reformers  to  take  this  noble 
ground.  I  wish  I  had  the  genius  to  pay  a  tribute  to  his 
memory.  Perhaps  it  would  be  impossible  to  pay  him  a 
grander  compliment  than  to  say,  Castellio  was  in  ail  things 
the  opposite  of  Calvin.  To  plead  for  the  right  of  individ- 
ual judgment  was  considered  as  a  crime,  and  Castellio  was 
driven  from  Geneva  by  John  Calvis.  By  him  he  was  de- 
nounced as  a  child  of  the  Devil,  as  a  dog  of  Satan,  as  a 
beast  from  hell,  and  as  one  who,  by  this  horrid  blasphemy 
of  ihe  innocence  of  honest  error,  crucified  Christ  afresh, 
and  by  him  he  was  pursued  until  rescued  by  the  hand  of 

death. 

"  Upon  the  name  of  Castellio,  Calvin  heaped  every  epi- 
thet, until  his  malice  was  satisfied  and  his  imagination  ex- 
hausted.   It  is  Impossible  to  conceive  how  human  nature 


■* 


4      J 


ean  beeome  so  frightfully  perrerted  as  to  pursue  a  fellow- 
man  with  the  malignity  of  a  lleud,  simply  because  he  la 
good,  just  and  generous. 

"GalTin  was  of  a  pallid,  bloodless  complexion,  thin, 
sickly,  iiritable,  gloomy,  impatient,  egotistic,  tyrannical, 
heartless  and  infamoas.  He  was  a  strange  compound  of 
reTCDgeful  morality,  malicious  forgiveness,  ferocious  char- 
ity, egotistic  humility,  and  a  kind  of  hellish  justice.  In 
other  words,  he  was  as  near  like  the  God  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  his  health  permitted. 

'*  The  best  thing,  howcTer,  about  the  Presbyterians  of 
Geneva  was,  that  they  denied  the  power  of  the  Pope,  and 
the  best  thing  about  the  Pope  was,  that  he  was  not  a  Pres* 
byterian. 

"  The  doctrines  of  Calvin  spread  rapidly  and  were  eagerly 
accepted  by  multitudes  on  the  Continent;  but  Scotland  in  a 
few  years  became  the  real  fortress  of  Presbyterianism.  The 
Scotch  succeeded  in  establishing  the  kind  of  theocracy  that 
flourished  in  Geneva.  The  clergy  took  possession  and  con- 
trol of  everybody  and  everything.  It  is  impossible  to  exag- 
gerate the  mental  degradation,  the  abject  superstition  of 
the  people  of  Scotland  during  the  reign  of  Presbyterianism. 
Heretics  were  hunted  and  devoured  as  though  they  had 
been  wild  beasts.  The  gloomy  insanity  of  Presbyterianism 
took  possession  of  a  great  majority  of  the  people.  They 
regarded  their  ministers  as  the  Jews  did  Hoses  and  Aaron. 
They  believed  they  were  the  f  pecial  agents  of  God,  and 
that  whatever  tbey  bound  in  Scotland  would  be  bound  in 
Heaven.  There  was  not  one  particle  of  intellectual  free- 
dom. No  man  was  allowed  to  differ  with  the  Church  or  to 
even  contradict  a  priest.  Had  Presbyterianism  maintained 
its  ascendency,  Scotland  would  have  been  peopled  by  sav- 
ages to-day." 

It  relieves  Calvin  of  none  of  the  odium  resting  upon  his 
name  to  say  that  the  cantons  of  Berne,  Zurich,  Bale,  and 
Schaffenhaiisen  concurred  in  th«  action  of  Geneva,  and  that 


THE  HUMPHRET-BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


825 


Kelancthon,  Beza.  Farel,  Bucer,  Oecolampadius,  Zuingli, 
Viret,  Peter  Martyr,  BuUinger,  Turretin,  and  Co.,  ap- 
proved of  his  damnable  and  murderous  treatment  of  poor 
Servetus.  It  is  a  terrible  commentary  on  their  improved 
religion  that  they  should  be  in  favor  of  burning  people  to 
death  for  opinion's  sake.  It  will  hardly  do  to  attribute  it 
to  their  having  recently  left  the  Mother  Church.  The  child 
is  no  better  than  the  parent,  and  it  was  not  until  the  higher 
and  ennobling  influences  of  civilization  had  time  to  produce 
their  better  results  that  the  desire  to  burn  those  who  did 
not  graduate  their  belief  according  to  the  Calvinistic  stand- 
ard left  the  hearts  of  Protestants. 

As  your  very  scathing  remarks  about  "  callow  striplings 
that  never  saw  a  life  of  Calvin  "  evidently  were  not  aimed 
at  myself,  I  will  let  them  pass  unnoticed.  I  presume  you 
will  allow  that  I  am  not  "callow."  Your  characteristic 
observations  also  about  "long  hair,  weird  looks,  spectacles, 
funny  clothes,  and  other  eccentricities,  all  put  on,"  etc., 
may  pass  unnoticed.  I  presume  you  did  not  mean  them  as 
personal  insinuations.  Wfiat  you  were  driving  at,  however, 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  decide. 

You  advertise  the  fact  that  I  have  presented  a  copy  of 
Paine's  Works  to  the  library  of  the  Cooper  Institute.  Yes, 
when  you  previously  remarked  that  a  copy  of  his  works 
was  not  in  that  noble  institution,  and  when  I  saw  that  you 
were  endeavoring  to  argue  from  that  fact  that  Mr.  Cooper 
did  not  believe  in  Paine's  writings,  I  resolved  to  test  the 
correctness  of  your  conclusions,  and  to  remove  the  stigma 
that  the  Cooper  Institute  Library  did  not  contain  a  copy  of 
Paine*s  Great  Works.  I  accordingly  presented  it  with  a 
copy  of  Paine*s  Works  and  a  copy  of  Lord  Amberley's 
** Analysis  of  Religious  Belief,"  a  work  equally  as  radical  as 
Paine's  writings.  I  am  pleased  to  say  that  the  volumes 
were  kindly  accepted,  and  I  have  in  my  possession  a  letter 
which  I  prize  very  highly,  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the 
|wo  books,  and  bearing  the  signature  of  the  venerable  and 


THS  HUHFHBET-BSNNETT  DISCUBnOOI. 


1?HS  HT7MPHRET-BBNNETT  DI»CU8SI9N. 


837 


lili 


I!-' 


excellent  Peter  Cooper  himself.  I  doubt  not  that  a  cop>  uf 
the  rerised  and  enlarged  '*  Sages,  Thinkers,  and  Reform- 
ers," which  will  sooD  be  issued,  and  a  copy  of  the  '*  Cham- 
pions of  the  Church  *'  will  be  as  graciously  accepted.  I 
here  venture  the  prediction  that  Peter  Cooper  will  value 
both  works  more  highly  than  you  will.  Let  me  ask  you, 
now,  whether  you  are  willing  to  accept  the  force  of  your 
arguments.  You  strongly  took  the  position  that  there  was 
not  a  copy  of  Paine*s  Works  in  that  library  because  Mr. 
Cooper  did  not  believe  in  Paine*s  writings.  Now  that  Mr. 
Cooper  has  graciously  accepted  these  works,  with  others 
equally  destructive  to  the  dogmas  upon  which  your  Church 
is  founded,  is  it  not  proof  positive  that  he  believes  them?  (1) 
If  your  arguments  are  worth  a  cent,  this  is  the  only  conclu- 
sion that  can  be  reached.  If  you  refuse  to  acknowledge  the 
com,  it  will  be  an  additional  proof  of  yoar  sophistry  and 
want  of  candor. 

You  again  refer  to  the  disintegrating  character  of  Infidel- 
ity, and  aim  to  make  a  point  in  your  own  favor  in  that  di- 
rection. #Now,  I  will  humor  you  to  this  extent:  so  far  as 
Christianity  is  aggregating  or  unifying,  binding  a  heteroge- 
neous conglomeration  of  absurdities  into  a  compact  system 
— so  far  as  it  is  an  idol  or  image  which  all  its  devotees,  on 
pain  of  excommunication,  are  required  to  bow  down  to, 
acknowledge  and  worship— so  far  as  this  subserviency  to  a 
creed  or  bundle  of  dogmas  destroys  the  right  of  individual 
judgment,  sinks  the  individuality  of  its  worshipers,  and 
makes  them  mere  machines  instead  of  free  men  and 
women,  free  to  think  according  to  the  dictates  of  reason 
and  common  sense — so  far,  1  say,  I  freely  admit  that  Infi- 
delity is  disintegrating,  and  I  rejoice  that  it  is.  It  is  far 
nobler  and  grander  than  the  slavish  system  which  binds  mill- 
ions of  human  minds  to  accept  a  prescribed  form  of  belief 
nolms  wtmt,  instead  of  being  left  free  to  embrace  truth 
wherever  presented.  Oh,  yes;  disintegration  and  indiviau- 
liity  are  far  preferable  to  stereotyped  bondage.  The  beauty 


«f  Infidelity  in  contrast  with  orthodoxy  is,  that  it  gives  the 
mind  liberty  and  room  to  act ;  every  man  and  woman  is 
allowed  to  decide  matters  of  belief  for  themselves.    None 
are  obliged  to  accept  what  they  cannot  believe  and  under- 
stand.   Yes,  indeed,  for  this  reason  Infidelity,  with  its  dis- 
integration, 'is  vastly  to  be  preferred  to  the  iron  mask  which 
orthodoxy  wears  and  insists  that  all  its  devotees  shall  sub- 
mit to.    I  rejjoice  to  see  this  work  of  disintegration  going 
on,  even  in  the  Churches.    People  are  daring  to  think  for 
ihemselves.    It  is  taking  place  in  your  own  Church  as  well 
as  in  the  sister  Churches.    The  Rev.  Mr.  Blauvelt  has  had 
his  trial  and  been  deposed;  the  Rev.  Mr.  Miller  has  had  his, 
the  Rev.   Mr.    Sagemen   has  had  his,  and  now  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Ashenfelter  is  to  have  his,  and  will  doubtless  be  made 
40**  walk  the  plank,"  and  more  and  more  will  follow. 
Active  minds  are  emerging  from  darkness  into  light;  the 
4i>onds  of  Church  and  creed  of  centuries  are  being  snapped, 
and  the  right  of  opinion  is  being  maintained.    Infidelity, 
^ndiviauality,  and  disintegration,  all  hail  t    Spread  over  the 
land  1    Take  oJS  the  mental  shackles  and  fetters  which  bind 
human  beings  t    Remove  forever  the  oUigatory  edict  that 
^everybody  must  think  just  according  to  the  prescribed 
model  or  go  to  hell.    Let  freedom  and  mental  liberty  be 
^he  rule,  though  all  cannot  think  alike  and  contract  their 
minds  into  one  narrow  groove.    Universal  mental  freedom 
is  the  genius  of  the  age. 

I  perceive  you  chafe  at  having  Protestant  clergymen 
classed  among  priests,  and  your  position  strikes  me  as  being 
A  ludicrous  one.  The  clergymen  of  the  Protestant  churches 
are  as  really  priests  as  those  of  the  Catholic  Church,  or 
Ihe  Mohammedan  or  Jewish  religions,  and  all  the  pagan 
religions  of  which  the  world  has  seen  so  much.  All  that 
class  of  men  who  claim  the  right  to  perform  the  priestly 
otlice,  to  make  known  the  will  of  the  gods  to  the  people,  to 
pray  to  the  gods  to  be  merciful  to  their  own  children,  and 
to  send  blessings  to  their  own  creatures,  and  who  takemonejf 


THE  nUMFHKET-BENNSTT  DISCUSSiaiT. 


and  other  perquisites  from  the  people  for  the  performance 
of  these  services,  are  priests;  and  Protestant  priests  come 
within  the  category  as  really  as  any  that  have  lired  within 
the  last  ten  thousand  years.    All  that  other  priests  do,  they 
do.    They  claim  that  they  have  a  freer  intercourse  with 
God  than  the    masses  have;   that   God   hearkens  more 
benignantly  to  their  supplications,  and  that  by  their  cries 
and  intercessions  he  softens  his  rule  over  his  numerous 
children.    These  preachers  claim  that  they  have  the  abil- 
My  to  explain  the  mysteries  of  godlines?,  and  that  they  can 
tell  where  God  is,  what  he  is»  and  what  his  tastes  and  wishes 
are.    They  have  grand  institutions  of  learning  which  cost 
many  thousands  of  dollars  per  year  to  condact,  and  here 
•tripKags  and  young  men  are  sent,  and  by  being  pnt  through 
a  course  of  Latin,  Greek,  the  classics,  etc.,  are  taught  to  be 
priests.    It  is  a  curious  proeess,  and  the  support  of  these 
70,000  {Mriesta  which  you  say  this  country  contains,  costs  the 
people  of  the  nation,  it  is  estimated,  $200,000,000  per  yearr 
Thus,  you  see,  learning  God's  will  and  pleasure  is  an  expen- 
sive business.    To  support  this  learned  and  trained  priest> 
hood  the  people  are  compelled  to  labor  and  toil  in  the 
dirt,  in  the  burning  sun,  the  biting  frosts,  and  the  pelting 
storms— all  to  feed  and  clothe  the  fat,  sleek  i)rie8ts  who  are 
shrewd  enough  to  get  the  best  there  is  produced,  and  to  de- 
mand reverence  and  obedience  from  the  people  who  wJll» 
Ingly  toil  for  them.    The  rule  of  this  priestly  class  is  being 
greatly  broken.    Mani^  thousands  of  people  are  learning 
that  they  can  get  along  just  as  well  without  prints  as  with 
them,  and  that  they  can  do  their  own  praying  and  thinking 
Just  as  well  and  just  as  acceptably  as  the  priest  can  do  it  for 
them,  and  thereby  make  a  great  saving  of  money,  food  and 
clothing.    It  has  taken  ages  to  learn  this  simple  bit  of  infor- 
mation, but  at  last  the  light  is  dawning  upon  the  human 
intellect    The  slavery  of  thousands  of  years  of  priestly 
rule  is  being  overthrown,  and  men  and  women  are  learninf^ 
to  be  pm;  to  be  their  own  priests  and  their  own  saviora. 


THE  HUMPURBSY  BENNETT  DISCUSSION. 


82^ 


Gods  and  devils  and  hells  are  losing  their  terrors,  and  the 
office  of  the  priest  is  fast  being  superseded.  Glorious  day  of 
light  and  liberty  I  I  pray  these  may  prevail,  until  not  a  sala- 
ried priest  to  say  prayers,  to  hear  confessions;  and  to  bestow 
God's  blessing  upon  his  own  offspring,  will  be  employed 
in  the  whole  world. 

Your  "three  articles"  of  the  creed  of  Liberalists,  which 
appear  to  be  an  invention  of  your  own  fertile  brain,  and 
by  which  possibly  you  might  make  a  fortune  could  you 
get  them  patented  in  time,  deserve  a  passing  notice.    Art. 
I.  '*  Every  individual  is  the  smartest  fellow  in  the  world." 
Now,  friend  Humphrey,  there  is  a  depth  of  thought,  a  per- 
fect originality  in  that  which  speaks  for  itself.    Indeed!  in- 
deed I    Is  an  Infidel  more  conceited,  more  egotistical,  more 
positive  that  he  has  the  truth,  than  a  Christian  clergy- 
man T    It  strikes  rae  in  this  respect  they  stand  about  on  a 
level.    Art.  II.  does  not  amount  to  much,  and  is  not  worth 
repeating.     Art.  III.  *'  It  makes  no  difference  what  you  be- 
lieve or  do— you'll  fetch  up  all  right."   Really,  friend  Hum- 
phrey, can  it  be  possible  that  a  man  like  you,  who  professes 
to  speak  the   truth,  seriously  asserts   of   Infidels  that  it 
makes  no  difference  what  we  do  ?    Why,  there  are  no  peo- 
ple in  the  world  who  hold  that  actions  are  a  factor  in  secur- 
ing happiness  so  strongly  as  Infidels.    We  assert  on  all  oc- 
casions that  it  is  our  own  conduct  that  decides  our  hap- 
piness or  unhappiness,  and  that  it  is  not  decided  by  the 
merits  or  demerits  of  another.    It  is  your  own  creed  that 
holds  that  it  makes  no  difference  what  you  do,  "you'll  fetch 
up  all  right,  if  you  only  have  faith  in  Jesus."    Here  is  an- 
other  instance,  my  Christian  brother,  where  you  are  entirely 
wide  of  the  truth.     With  us  conduct  is  everything  in  mak- 
ing up  happiness,  present  or  prospective.    With  yoxx^  faith 
is  the  only  necessary  ingredient ;   conduct,  good  or  bad, 
has  very  little  to  do  with  it. 

You  insinuate  that  in  quoting  two  verses  from  St.  Paul, 
I  took  them  from  the  Investigator,  and   that  the  quota- 


THX  nUMPHRKT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSlOir. 


tlons  are  wrong.  You  are  at  faalt.  You  have  no  grouuds 
for  such  an  Insinuation.  I  do  not  remember  ever  haying 
seen  those  quotations  in  that  paper,  and  there  is  certainly 
no  difficulty  in  quoting  them  directly  from  the  Testament 
itself.  I  made  the  quotations  accurately,  and  I  have  at  least 
an  equal  right  with  yourself  to  decide  whether  Paul  was 
advocating  lying  or  not. 

You  carp  again  about  Infidels  not  having  founded  insti- 
tutions of  learning,  orphan  asylums,  etc.  It  would  seem 
that  you  had  said  enough  upon  that  subject  to  let  it  rest 
awhile.  I  have  shown  fairly  and  beyond  contradiction 
that  heretics  and  unbelievers  have  been  munificent  in  their 
generosity  towards  institutions  of  learning,  and  that  liberal 
bequests  have  been  made  by  them.  Unbelievers  have  not 
been  organized  into  societies  as  Christians  are,  and  havo 
not  anywhere  been  nearly  as  numerous.  Organizations  are, 
however,  now  being  extensively  effected  among  Infidels  in 
Europe  and  America,  and  in  a  few  years  we  shall  become 
sufficiently  organized  for  all  practical  purposes.  As  I  said  In 
my  last  reply,  for  many  hundreds  of  years  Christiana  were  ao 
busy  at  murdering  unbelievers  and  heretics  that  they  got 
them  pretty  well  killed  off.  It  will,  of  course,  take  aome 
little  time  for  Infidels  to  "pick  up**  enough  to  become  aa 
numerous  and  as  rich  aa  Christians,  and  aa  able  to  give 
to  collegea,  asylums,  etc  There  la  no  good  reason  why  m 
Liberal  ahoold  not  be  aa  generous  as  a  Christian,  except  that 
the  later  gives  his  ill-gotten  dollars  with  the  insane  idea 
that  he  is  buying  a  front  seat  in  Paradise,  and  escaping  that 
terrible  lake  that  burnetii  with  fire  and  brimstone,  the  idea 
of  which  (for  the  benefit  of  others,  and  not  yourself)  you  hug 
so  fondly  to  your  boson.  Tho  notion  that  parting  with 
his  filthy  lucre  may  ho  counted  to  him  aa  rtghteonsness, 
knowing  that  he  cannot  take  It  with  him  across  the  river 
Styx,  and  the  selfish  hope  that  it  will  make  hia  heavenly 
crown  brighter  and  heavier,  has  made  many  a  aordid  Chris- 
tlang|vnptk«csshh>liafcHBlredhyoppffwi^tlislaboi*' 


THB  HUMPHRBT-BENNBrr  DISCUSSION. 


831 


Ing  man,  and  grinding  the  face  of  tiie  poor.  Infidels,  I  will- 
ingly admit,  do  not  give  from  any  motive  of  this  kind. 
When  they  give,  it  is  for  the  earthly  benefit  of  their  fellow- 
beings — the  noblest  of  human  incentives. 

There  are  numerous  other  sophistries  and  false  positions 
in  your  letter  that  ought  to  be  exposed  and  corrected,  but 
for  want  of  room  I  will  be  compelled  to  pass  over  for 
tiie  present.  I  iDdulge  the  hope  that  you  will  ultimately 
come  to  take  a  more  correct  view  of  things,  and  will  be 
able  to  arrive  at  more  correct  conclusions.  I  hope  at  alt 
events,  you  will  cultivate  a  spirit  of  candor  and  fairness 
which,  pardon  me,  I  fear  you  are  now  slightly  deficient  in* 
It  behoves  you  to  be  accurate  and  to  fairly  meet  the  issue 
we  have  under  discussion,  and  to  make  correct  representa* 
tions  only. 

The  various  topics  touched  upon  by  yourself  and  myself 
possess  more  or  less  importance,  but  they  are  not  the  sub- 
ject immediately  before  us.  Let  me  remind  yon  that  the 
proposition  that  we  should  be  discussing  is,  **  Is  there  a 
stronger  probability  that  the  Bible  is  divine  than  that  Infi- 
delity  is  true  V*  So  far  the  subject  has  not  been  touched. 
It  seems  to  me  yos  purposely  avoid  it  I  also  made  ia 
my  laat  the  assertion  that  the  Christian  religion  is  made  up 
of  Judaism  and  Paganism,  and  called  upon  you  to  disprove 
it  if  it  is  not  so.  I  charged  that  every  Christian  rite,  ob- 
servance, symbol,  sscrameot  and  dogma  were  directly  bor- 
rowed from  the  older  systems  of  religion  that  had  existed 
in  the  world,  and  that  not  one  oi  them  was  really  ori^dnal 
with  the  Christian  Church.  If  this  is  not  so,  I  called  upon 
you  to  disprove  it  I  stated  aa  a  fact  that  Jesus  was  not  the  < 
first  demi-god  said  to  have  been  begotten  by  a  god  upon  the  f 
person  of  a  virgin ;  that  smne  forty  persons  of  this  cUms 
were  believed  in  before  the  time  of  Jesus,  and  I  hoped  you 
would  endeavor  to  refnte  it  if  yon  could.  You  took  no  no- 
tice of  it  Am  I  to  understand  that  yon  acknowledge  the 
(nUh  of  the  sUtement  f    If  it  Is  tnie ;  if  the  Psgaas  for 


*  1 


I 

il] 
i 


m 


ill 


nUMPHRKT-BBKNSTT  DISCUSSIOV. 

lions  are  wrong.  You  are  at  fault.  You  have  no  grounds 
for  sucli  an  Insinuation.  I  do  not  remember  ever  having 
seen  those  quotations  in  that  paper,  and  there  is  certainly 
no  difficulty  in  quoting  them  directly  from  the  Testament 
itself.  I  made  the  quotations  accurately,  and  I  have  at  least 
an  equal  right  with  yourself  to  decide  whether  Paul  was 
advocating  lying  or  not. 

You  carp  again  about  Infidels  not  having  founded  insti- 
tutions of  learning,  orphan  asylums,  etc.  It  would  seem 
that  you  had  said  enough  upon  that  subject  to  let  it  rest 
awhile.  I  have  shown  fairly  and  beyond  contradiction 
that  heretics  and  unbelievers  have  been  munificent  in  their 
generosity  towards  institutions  of  learning,  and  that  liberal 
bequests  have  been  made  by  them.  Unbelievers  have  not 
been  organized  into  societies  as  Christians  are,  and  have 
not  anywhere  been  nearly  as  numerous.  Organizations  are, 
however,  now  being  extensively  effected  among  Infidels  in 
Europe  and  America,  and  in  a  few  years  we  shall  become 
sufficiently  organized  for  all  practical  purposes.  As  I  said  in 
my  last  reply,  for  many  hundreds  of  years  Christians  were  so 
busy  at  murdering  unbelievers  and  heretics  that  they  got 
them  pretty  well  killed  off.  It  will,  of  course,  take  some 
little  time  for  Infidels  to  *•  pick  up  "  enough  to  become  as 
numerous  and  as  rich  as  Christians,  and  as  able  to  give 
to  colleges,  asylums,  etc.  There  is  no  good  reason  why  a 
Liberal  should  not  be  as  generous  as  a  Christian,  except  that 
the  later  gives  his  ill-gotten  dollars  with  the  insane  idea 
that  he  is  buying  a  front  seat  in  Paradise,  and  escaping  that 
terrible  lake  that  burueth  with  fire  and  brimstone,  the  idea 
of  which  (for  the  benefit  of  others,  and  not  yourself)  you  hug 
so  fondly  to  your  bosom.  The  notion  that  parting  with 
his  filthy  lucre  may  be  counted  to  him  as  righteousness, 
knowing  that  he  cannot  take  it  with  bim  across  the  river 
Styx,  and  the  selfish  hope  that  it  will  make  his  heavenly 
crown  brighter  and  heavier,  has  made  many  a  sordid  Chris- 
tian give  up  the  cash  he  has  acquired  by  oppressing  the  labor- 


^BtE  HUMPHllKY-BENNErr  DISCUSSION. 


831 


Ing  man,  and  grinding  the  face  of  the  poor.  Infidels,  I  will- 
ingly admit,  do  not  give  from  any  motive  of  this  kind. 
When  they  give,  it  is  for  the  earthly  benefit  of  their  fellow- 
beings— the  noblest  of  human  incentives. 

There  are  nunaerous  other  sophistries  and  false  positions 
in  your  letter  that  ought  to  be  exposed  and  <jorrected,  but 
for  want  of  room  I  will  be  compelled  to  pass  over  for 
the  present.  I  indulge  the  hope  that  you  will  ultimately 
come  to  take  u  more  correct  view  of  things,  and  will  be 
able  to  arrive  at  more  correct  conclusions.  I  hope  at  all 
events,  you  will  cultivate  a  spirit  of  candor  and  fairness 
which,  pardon  me,  I  fear  you  are  now  slightly  deficient  in* 
It  behoves  you  to  be  accurate  and  to  fairly  meet  the  issue 
we  have  under  discussion,  and  to  make  correct  representa^ 
tions  only. 

The  various  topics  touched  upon  by  yourself  and  myself 
possess  more  or  less  importance,  but  they  are  not  the  sub- 
ject immediately  before  us.    Let  me  remind  you  that  the 
proposition  that  we  should  be  discussing  i8>  "Is  there  a 
stronger  probability  that  the  Bible  is  divine  than  that  Infi- 
delity  is  true  r*    So  far  the  subject  has  not  been  touched. 
It  seems  to  me  you  purposely  avoid  it.    I  also  made  ia 
my  last  the  assertion  that  the  Christian  religion  is  made  up 
of  Judaism  and  Paganism,  and  called  upon  you  to  disprove 
it  if  it  is  not  so.    I  charged  that  every  Christian  rite,  oh- 
servance,  symbol,  sacrament  and  dogma  were  directly  bor- 
rowed from  the  older  systems  of  religion  that  had  existed 
in  the  world,  and  that  not  one  of  them  was  really  ori;;inal 
with  the  Christian  Church.     If  this  is  not  so,  I  called  upon 
you  to  disprove  it.    I  stated  as  a  fact  that  Jesus  was  not  the 
first  demigod  said  to  have  been  begotten  by  a  god  upon  the 
person  of  a  virgin ;  that  some  forty  persons  of  this  class 
wore  believed  in  before  the  time  of  Jesus,  and  I  hoped  you 
would  endeavor  to  refute  it  if  you  could.    You  took  no  no- 
tice of  it.    Am  I  to  understand  that  you  acknowledge  tha 
truth  of  the  statement  f    If  it  is  true  ;  if  the  Pagans  for 


( 


fSTf" 


f 


fS^ 


THE  mntPHRKT-BENNETT  DlSCUSfllOir. 


Many  Hundreds  of  years  before  the  dawn  of  Christianity 
believed  that  their  gods  cohabited  with  young  virgins  ; 
that  the  progeny  were  beings  half  god  and  half  man  ;  thai 
they  lived  for  a  time,  had  little  bands  of  disciples  who  fol- 
lowed them  around  and  listened  to  their  teachings,  and  those 
sons  of  gods  were  finally  crucified  or  otherwise  put  to 
death  for  the  salvation  and  happiness  of  man,  it  robs  Chris- 
tianity of  all  its  originality  and  of  all  its  truth.  You  do  not 
try  to  refute  this.  I  Judge  it  is  because  you  cannot  do  so 
successfully.  These  are  lacts  too  well  attested  to  be  con- 
troverted. And  here,  let  me  say,  if  the  Christian  religion 
is  of  divine  origin  ;  if  the  begetting,  the  birth,  the  life  and 
death  of  Jesus  are  facts,  and  were  necessary  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  world,  it  is  very  singular  indeed  that  in  getting 
up  such  a  stupendous  system  as  the  only  possible  means  by 
which  God's  lost  children  could  be  saved,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  follow  in  every  minutia  and  adopt  in  full  the 
myths  and  fables  of  pagan  systems  of  religion.  If  he  has 
no  more  originality  than  that,  and  is  under  the  necessity  of 
adopting  old  and  worn-out  legends  and  vagaries,  it  is  ques- 
tionable if  he  is  fit  to  be  considered  Go(|>  Almighty,  and 
whether  he  ought  not  to  resigu  the  position  in  favor  of  some 
god  that  has  originality.  Do  you  believe  your  God  did,  in 
getting  up  his  grand  system  of  salvation,  borrow  it  from 
the  pagans  ?  If  not  how  did  he  come  to  pattern  after 
paganism  so  closely  ?    Will  you  please  answer  t 

I  charged  you  with  defending  and  supporting  a  borrowed 
system  of  myths  and  superstitions,  handed  down  from  the 
past  ages  of  darkness,  ignorance,  and  supernaturalism, 
which  system  you  are  pleased  to  call  the  Christian  religion. 
It  is  a  serious  charge,  but  you  take  no  notice  of  it,  you  do 
not  deny  it.  I  reiterate  it  now,  and  again  call  upon  you  to 
disprove  it  if  you  are  able  to  do  so.  If  you  do  not,  I  and 
our  readers  will  be  justified  in  deciding  that  you  acknow- 
ledge the  truth  of  the  charge. 
*  Tou,  in  common  with  your  brethren  of  tli«  "cloth," 


THB    HUliPHBSY-BSNNSTT  DIBCUBaiON. 

claim  to  act  uniter  a  commission  from  the  King  of  Heaven 
to  perform  glorious  deeds  in  his  service.    It  is  perhaps 
most  honorable  to  be  engaged  by  so  exalted  a  personsge; 
and  may  I  here  ask  you  to  bho  w  your  credentials  f   If  you  act 
by  such  high  authority,  you  certainly  can  furnish  the  papers 
under  which  you  act.    It  will  not  be  suflicient  to  hold  up 
the  Bible  to  me.    I  have  the  copy  of  that  antique  volume 
which  my  mother  gave  me  nearly  half  a  century  ago.    I 
can  concede  no  prerogative  to  you  from  that  book  which  I 
do  not  possess  myself.    If  you  can  show  no  authority  from 
the  king  under  whom  you  claim  to  serve,  is  it  unjust  that 
you  should  be  regarded  as  an  impostor?    I  again  ask  for 
your  credentials. 
^      Again  let  us  revert  to  the  question  under  discussion:  1% 
the  Bibls  divine  f    To  answer  this  question  in  the  affirma- 
tive you  have  to  assume  the  existence  of  supernaturalism. 
That  there  is  a  power  in  existence  greater  that  the  entire 
Universe,  and  that  the  Bible  is  a  divine  revelation  from  this 
superior  power.    I  hold  that  you  cannot  prove  this  to  be 
true.    I  hold  that  the  Universe  embraces  all  substances,  all 
forces,  all  powers,  and  all  existences.  That  there  is  nothing 
above  it,  nothing  superior  to  it,  nothing  contrary  to  it, 
and  that  there  can  be  no  supernaturalism.    I   call  upon 
you  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  supernatural  power.    I 
want  other  proof  than  Bible -prcof.     Before  that  book 
can  be  taken  as  evidence  it  must  itself  be  proved— equally 
as  hopeless  a  task  as  to  prove  the  existence  of  super- 
naturalism. 

If  this  supernatural  power  is  proved,  it  will  be  next  in 
order  to  show  that  the  compilation  by  diJDferent  authors, 
called  the  Bible,  was  written  or  dictated  by  that  Supreme 
Power.  If  that  power  is  all-good,  all-wise,  and  all  perfect, 
his  productions  must  also  be  all-good,  all-perfect,  with- 
out blemish,  contradiction  or  fault.  I  call  upon  you, 
then,  to  show  why  the  Bible  has  hundreds  of  contradictions, 
why  it  is  full  of  absurdities  and  obscenity,  and  why  it  re- 


^"^^^-sssassssas 


8S4  THE  HUMPHBBY-BENKKTT  DIBCU9SI0H. 

lates  the  adventures  of  an  obscure  race  of  semi-barbarians 
instead  of  giving  the  principles  of  science  and  knowledge, 
most  needed  by  men  of  all  nations  and  all  time. 

I  ask  you  to  explain  if  the  Bible  was  dictated  by  the 
various  writers,  why  Moses,  Joshua.  Solomon,  and  the 
rest  of  them,  did  not  do  as  much  as  to  say  so.  and  that  the 
divine  power  controlled  them  ? 

If  revelation  from  God  is  assumed  to  be  a  fact  to  the 
person  to  whom  it  is  made  known,  I  ask  you  to  show  how 
it  is  a  revelation  to  all  the  world,  to  whom  it  is  not  re- 
vealed,  but  to  whom  it  comes  second  hand,  and  who  have 
no  authority  upon  which  to  base  a  beUef  in  It  save  the  naked 
assertion  or  say-so  of  the  first  party,  who  claims  to  have 
had  a  revelation.  If  God.  in  a  secret  manner,  reveals  a 
certain  piece  of  information  to  me.  and  I  relate  it  to  you,  is 
that  a  revelation  from  God  to  you,  oris  it  simply  a  narrative 
of  mine,  reliable  or  unreliable  as  my  credibility  may  war- 
rant  ?  Are  you  compelled  to  believe  me  under  penalty  of 
burning  in  heU  forever  f  Ought  God  to  compel  you  to  be- 
lleve  my  assertion  without  any  corroboration  when  be  does 
not  give  you  the  slightest  proof  that  I  state  the  truth  T  If 
God  wants  to  reveal  anything  to  you.  should  he  not  do 
it  direct,  and  not  by  the  roundabout  way  of  telling  me  and 
then  having  me  tell  you  f 

In  order  to  enable  me  to  beUeve  that  the  Bible  was  writ- 
ten  or  dictated  by  a  being  superior  to  man.  I  must  be  con- 
vinced  that  it  contains  wisdom,  knowledge,  beauty  and  per 
fection  superior  to  the  ability  of  man.  As  I  do  not  believe 
that  the  Bible  contains  anything  that  man  has  not  been  ca- 
pable  of  writing,  that  the  knowledge  and  llteraiy  abUity  in 
it  U  not  superior  to  the  Bibles  of  the  Hindoos,  the  Persians, 
the  Egyptians,  and  of  other  nations,  and  which  were  writ- 
ten at  an  earlier  date  than  the  Jewish  Bible,  as  well  as  the 
productions  oi  Menu,  Ossian.  Homer  and  others,  I  specially 
ask  you  to  point  out  wherein  that  superiority  consists,  and 
what  there  ii  In  the  BlUe  that  man  could  ftot  have  written. 


1 


(J 


TBB  HUHPHUBY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION 


835 


I  hold  that  for  every  event  that  has  ever  occurred  there 
has  been  a  natural  cause  sufficient  to  produce  it,  and  lb  at 
there  never  has  been  a  result  without  a  natural  cause. 
If  you  are  able  to  prove  to  the  contrary  of  this,  I 
ask  you  to  do  so.  1  also  ask  you  to  show  why  I  am  any 
more  under  obligations  to  accept  as  divinely  inspired  the 
writings  attributed  to  Moses  or  Paul,  than  those  of 
Mohammed  or  Joseph  Smith.  I  ask  you  to  show  why  I 
am  any  more  under  obligation  to  believe  that  Jonah  swal- 
lowed the  whale  or  that  Joshua  stopped  the  sun  and  moon 
in  their  course,  than  the  equally  beautiful  and  intellectual 
stories  about  Jack  and  his  bean-stalk  and  Aladdin  and 
his  wonderful   lamp. 

As  the  Infidelity  we  have  under  consideration  is  an  un- 
belief in  the  divinity  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  I  call  upon 
you  to  show  how  and  wherein  that  Infidelity  is  more  untrue 
than  that  the  Bible  is  divine.  Before  Infidelity  can  be 
shown  to  be  false,  you  must  show  that  the  Bible  is  divine. 

Begging  pardon  for  the  lengthiness  of  my  reply,  which 
seemed  necessary  to  refute  your  errors,  I  remain  sincerely 
yours,  D.  M.  Bennett. 


MR.     HUHPHRET. 


Mr.  D.  M.  Bennett,  Dear  Sir:  Owing  either  to  my  lack 
of  acumen,  or  to  your  paucity  of  arguments,  the  perusal  of 
your  Reply  brought  to  my  mind  those  words  of  Shakspeare: 

**  Gratiano  speaks  an  infiaite  deal  of  nothing,  more  than 
any  man  in  all  Venice.  His  reasons  are  his  two  grains  of 
wheat  hid  in  two  bushels  of  chaff:  you  shall  seek  all  day 
ere  you  find  them;  and  when  you  htfve  them,  they  are  not 
worth  the  search.'*— TAe  Merchant  of  Venice. 

You  have  scraped  up  another  installment  of  men  that 
did  not  practically  believe  in  the  precepts  and  example 
of  Christ,  who   have   crept  into   the   pulpit   under   the 


.1 . 


THB  mjMPHBEY-BENNBTT  DlflOUSSIOH. 

mask  of  hypocrisy.  Go  ahead ;  you  aw  only  showing 
how  that  the  predictions  of  Scripture  are  being  fulfilled: 
••For  I  know  this,  that  after  my  departure  shall  grievoua 
wolves  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock"  (Acts 
XX,  29).  As  I  have  no  objection  to  helping  you  along  in 
this  matter,  let  me  suggest  that  you  drag  your  muck-rake 
through  Dante's  Inferno.  You  will  there  find  quite  a  num- 
ber of  names  which  your  cotemporaneous  standards— 77i« 
JWftOfl  Nem,  The  Befcrmtr  db  JewUh  Times,  etc.,— know  but 
little  about.  What  a  lean,  lank,  gaunt,  ghastly  old  spindle- 
shanks  Infidelity  must  be  anyhow,  that  she  is  obliged  to  be 
continually  coloring  her  sunken  cheeks  with  the  blood  of 
papistic  persecutions,  and  to  be  giving  curvature  to  her 
fleshless  calves,  and  plumpness  to  her  hollow  bosom,  with 
pads  made  of  the  fleece  that  hypocritical  wolves  have  worni 

Tou  have  confirmed  me  in  the  conviction  that  Infidels 
do  not  hold  up  the  lapses  of  clergymen  because  they  love 
Morality,  but  because  they  hate  the  Church.  It  appears 
from  their  journals  that  they  regard  Immorality  as  quite 
excusable  in  anybody,  provided  he  is  not  a  Christian.  In  a 
"Freethinker"  a  "peccadillo"  is  almost  admired.  As 
it  Is  the  envious  and  spiteful  farmer  that  is  continually 
pointing  out  an  occasional  thistle  or  tare  in  his  neighbor's 
fields,  never  saying  a  word  about  his  acres  of  waving  grain, 
so  the  malignant  spirit  of  Infidelity  is  revealed  by  its  gabble 
about  the  imperfections  of  the  Church,  while  it  is  as  sUeni 
as  the  grave  about  her  many  excellent  qualities  and  innu- 
merable services  to  mankind. 

You  will  have  it  that  the  Jews  were  cannibals,  because 
they  may  have  eaten  human  flesh  in  the  desperation 
of  famine.  Will  you  reason  after  the  same  fashion,  and 
say  that  the  American  people  are  mule-eaters,  because  some 
of  our  soldiers  had  to  eat  mule-flesh  in  some  of  the  priva- 
tions  of  the  late  civil  wart  I  am  somewhat  curious  to 
know  who  those  "distinguished"  writers  are  who  say  that 
the  ancient  Jews  were  man-eaters.    Names,  please. 


TBM  aUMPHBBT-BBNHBTT  DISOUBSIOir. 


837 


Neither  did  the  Jews  offer  human  sacriflces.  Abraham 
did  not  slay  his  son  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii,  11-14).  Even  if  Jeph- 
thah  did  immolate  his  daughter,  he  was  violating  the  Mosaic 
Law  (Deut.  xii,  81).  But  there  are  many  critics  who  be- 
lieve that  he  fulfilled  his  vow  by  devoting  her  to  perpetual 
virginity  (See  Lange  on  Judges  xi,  29-40). 

You  do  not  seem  to  know  that  Herodotus  wrote  a  missing 
"History  of  Assyria,"  or  Syria,  as  the  Greeks  often  called 
that  country.  You  will  see  that  such  was  the  fact  by  look- 
ing into  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  London,  1858,  vol.  i,  pp. 
29,  249,  321,  and  vol  iv,  p.  63. 

Your  attempt  to  show  that  Robespierre  was  a  Catholic  is 
futile  and  inconsistent.     By  your  style  of  reasoning  in 
regard  to  him  it  could  be  shown  that  others,  in  whose  Infi- 
delity you  boast,  were  Christians.    If  his  belief  in  a  God 
made  him  a  Christian,  it  also  did  as  much  for  Thomas 
Paine.    If  his  talk  about  being  an  *'  indifferent  Catholic  " 
really  made  him  a  Catholic,  then  Voltaire,  who  talked 
about  reverently  kissing  the  Pope's  feet,  was  a  better  Cath- 
olic stilL    When  you  appeal  to  Robespierre's  tolerance  and 
protection  of  the  clergy  as  an  evidence  that  he  was  a  relig- 
ious man,  are  you  not  reversing  the  everlasting  boast  of 
Infidelity,  that  Infidels  are  far  more  "  Uberal "  than  Chris- 
tians ? 

You  quote  rather  profusely  from  Mr.  IngersoU.    Poor 
IngersoUI    His  presentation  of   Paine  to  an  occasional 
audience  will  be  a  greater  failure  than  his  presentation  of 
Blaine  at  the  Cincinnati  Convention.    His  "  Orations  "  are 
mostly  slashing  tirades— frantic  tongue-lashings— tissues  of 
delirious  dogmatism— pills,  coated  with  pretty  rhetoric,  but 
filled  with  historical  blunders  and  biographical  caricatures. 
The  sickly  suckling  that  swallows  them  will  become  sick- 
lier still.    Give  me  Bancroft's,  or  Fronde's,  or  even  Bayle's 
delineation  of  Calvin  and  Calvinsm,  rather  than  the  rav- 
ings of  a  man  who  is  apparently  unable  to  distinguish 
reasoning  from  betting  and  blustering. 


I  II 

Mi 

'if] 


THB  HUMFHRBT-BENKBTT  DISCUSMOK. 

I  repeat  that  Voltaire  tried  to  make  up  with  the  priests 
before  his  death.     Speaking  of  a  hemorrhage  that  had 
leized  him  a  short  time  bef oro  the  end  of  his  life,  the  Ency- 
aopedia  Britannica  says:  "Voltaire,  thinking  himself  in 
danger,  said  he  did  not  wish  his  body '  to  be  cast  to  the  vul- 
tures  '  and  bargained  with  the  Abb§  Gauthier,  to  whom  he 
committed  it  for  the  rites  of  sepulture,  if  nothing  else.  The 
preliminaries  for  duly  receiving  such  a  deposit  were  soon 
settled ;  Voltaire  had  no  objection  at  all  to  the  ceremonies 
proper  to  the  occasion.   He  made  a  declaration  thai  he  wished 
to  die  in  the  Catholic  religion,  in  which  he  had  leen  bom,  asked 
pardon  of  Qod  and  the  church  for  the  offenses  he  had  eommitted 
against  thm,  and  received  absolution.''    As  Longchamps  and 
Wagnilre,  Maaure.  and  Condorcet— an  Atheist,  who  died 
by  his  own  hand— all  corroborate  this  statement,  there  is  no 
reason  for  disputing  it.    It  is  true  that  Voltaire  recovered 
somewhat  from  that  attaisk  of  iickneas.    But  it  is  not  on 
record  that  he  expressed  any  disapproval  of  the  arrange- 
ment with  Abb6  Gauthier.    His  last  hours  are  enveloped 
In  a  cloud  of  uncertainty,  owing  to  contradictory  testimo- 
Hies.    The  mqjorUy  of  authorities  state  that  he  approached 
death  with  agony  and  remorse.    The  Infidel  Strauss  says 
that  Tronchin,  his  attendant  physician,  wrote  a  letter  to 
Bonnett  in  which  he  compared  his  death  to  a  raging  storm, 
and  to  the  mad  ravings  of  Orestes.    The  same  authority 
tells  us  further  that  he  was  buried  In  consecrated  ground, 
and  that  the  usual  burial  service  was  said  over  his  grave. 
It  is  true  that  some  bishops  and  other  ecclesiastics  were  dis- 
pleased with  this  ;  but  the  fact  remains  that  Voltaii«  was 
buried  as  a  Roman  Catholic  (Strauss'  Voltaire,  pp.  840- 
«).    Thus  it  is  clear  that  Voltaire  did  not  die  an  avowed 

Infidel. 

But  I  waive  all  claim  to  Mr.  IngersolFi  reward.  Mine  is 
A  labor  of  love— a  chat  with  friend  Bennett  on  points  of 
difference  between  us.  As  Col.  IngersoU  is  presumably  out 
of  debt,  I  would  suggest  that  he  send  his  superfluous  change 


THB  HUMPHREY-BENNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


to  save  Paine  Hall  from  sheriff  sale.  If  anything  is  left 
after  that,  he  might  send  a  purse  to  each  of  the  Infidel  jour- 
nals that  have  of  late  been  lavishing  their  soft  soap  on  him 
—possibly  with  their  eyes  squinting  toward  his  wallet. 

I  have  already  admitted  that  Thomas  Paine  died  as  ho 
had  lived,  a  Deist  (Letter  iv).  But  that  he  did  so  is  surely 
nothmg  to  boast  of  (Phil,  iii,  18,  19).  It  would  have  been 
far  more  creditable  to  him  if  he  had  recanted  more  and  de- 
canted less. 

I  will  now  take  up  some  of  the  difficulties  that  will  often 
occur  to  thoughtful  men  as  they  study  the  Bible  histori- 
cally and  hermeneutically.  Infidels  are  not  alone  in  know- 
ing of  these  difficulties.  Every  minister,  of  average  educa- 
tion, is  familiar  with  them.  And  they  are  not  unfrequently 
considered  in  the  higher  classes  of  the  Sabbath-school.  I 
wish  to  treat  them  with  every  due  respect.  I  only  regret 
that  my  time  and  abilities  are  not  such  as  to  enable  me  to 
discuss  them  more  thoroughly. 

Let  me,  however,  premise  that  it  is  not  at  all  remarkable 
that  the  Bible  is  made  the  subject  of  hypercriticisms  and 
objections.  As  long  as  men  are  as  they  are,  such  a  code  of 
morals  as  would  be  exempt  from  their  fault-finding  is  in- 
conceivable and  impossible.  They  would  peek  at  absolute 
Perfection  itself.  There  is  therefore  no  presumption  in 
the  mere  cavilings  of  men  that  the  Bible  is  anything  less 
than  it  claims  to  be.    But  let  us  examine  the  objections  : 

1.  The  question  of  the  Canon  is  perplexing  to  some  minds. 
The  Bible  was  written  by  different  men  at  different  times. 
Many  centuries  Intervened  between  Moses  and  St.  John. 
It  mentions  several  documents  of  high  authority  which  it 
does  not  contain,  and  which  are  irreparably  lost  (Num. 
xxi,  14;  Josh,  x,  13;  1  Kings  xi,  41;  2  Chron.  ix,  29;  xxxii, 
82,  etc.).  And  then  there  are  several  books  known  as  the 
Apocrypha.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  declared  those  of 
the  Old  Testament  canonical.  And  considerable  weight 
has  been  attached  now  and  then  to  some  of  the  books  com- 


:r 


HUICPHBET'BENNBTT  DI8CU98ION. 

podng  the  Apocryphal  New  Testament.  The  Canons  of 
the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament  were  compiled  and  com- 
pleted some  time  after  their  constituent  parts  had  been 
written.  Such  are  the  grounds  of  the  difficulty  under 
consideration. 

On  this  it  may  be  observed  (1)  That  th^  lost  books  men- 
tioned in  the  Old  Testament  were  not  of  vitt^l  importance. 
They  are  referred  to  only  on  points  of  history,  biography, 
or  natural  science.  We  have  no  intimation  that  they  con- 
tained any  new  light  on  moral  and  spiritual  truth.  While 
Ihey  might  gratify  curiosity  and  elucidate  some  points  of 
sacred  history,  they  could  add  nothing  to  the  central  idea 
of  the  Scriptures. 

(»)  As  to  the  Apocrypha,  they  ar«  before  us;  and  their 
contents  show  that  they  would  modify  the  doctrines  of  the 
Scriptures  in  no  perceptible  degree,  even  if  they  should  ba 
receired  as  authoritatiye.  Those  writings  serve  to  shofr 
by  contrast  the  supreme  excellence  of  the  Scriptures  proper. 

(B)  It  was  well  that  the  parts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa< 
ments  were  not  compiled  until  tome  time  after  they  were 
written.  If  undue  haste  had  been  exercised  in  this  matter, 
the  objector  would  say  that  other  prophecies  and  epistles 
may  have  been  thereby  shut  out.  The  compilation  was 
deferred  only  until  the  prophetic  and  apostolic  writings 
had  indisputably  ceased. 

(4)  The  separate  books  of  the  Bible  were  Law  and  Qospel 
before  they  were  put  together  in  one  volume.  They  are  not 
authoritative  because  they  are  in  the  Canon,  but  they  are  in 
the  Canon  because  they  are  authoritative. 

(5)  We  have  the  endorsement  of  Christ  on  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament  (Mat.  zxii,  29;  Luke  xxiv,  27; 
John  ▼,  39;  x,  85).  And  the  writers  of  the  New  were 
men  personally  prepared  and  approved  by  Himself.  The 
Apostles  spoke  of  each  other*8  writings  as  Scriptures  (3  Pet. 
iii,  16).  We  have  thus  the  ImprinuUur  of  ChrUt  and  the 
Apostles  on  the  Canon  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 


.nSnT!l!?!*'  "'^''°  "  '  '"""*•  P"'*'"*"  ^"^  «  appear. 
luZor'^r't '''''''''' "°°  '""^  ^"  doubt  l>ut 
1  nS^L    lu  !  T   '^^  "P  °'  ""any  Paru.  it  is  maaiiostly 
dar   Thl",;  "^  ""undant  without  being  reduu 
and  falSr  1     .      '"'"'  *  correspondence  of  predictions 

pans  ft^rwe     '   """  '^'  ^°"-'^P''  ""««  ""I  «»»»'- 
parts,  ftat  we  may  rererently  say  of  it  in  tlie  dying  words 

of  Its  Heart  and  Life,  "It  is  flnislied.- 

I  in  Z  r     "^  ""^^^  ""  "•"«*'*"««  °°  "^«  matter. 
A  God   that  has  a  personal   Being,  and  that  loves  his 

":n::  :t.  ""t'^""*"  ^-^^  k„own ::  l^: 

The  thorough  student  will  examine  the  works  of  Gaussen 
Alexander.  Cosin,  Jones.  Stuart.  FUrst.  Davidson  W^^°' 
Credner,  and  others  on  this  subject.  ' 

8.  It  is  sometimes  objected  that  the  Bible  is  no  Rerela- 
^n  to  «.  eren  if  it  should  be  admitted  that  it  was  a  W- 

Ut.onto.u  original  writers.  ThisobjectionisassophJtli 
as  It  to  old.  Suppose  a  truth,  unknown  before,  is  made 
know,  to  some  Indiyidnal.  and  he  records  it  ta  wriTint 

21  ^l         '**"""    ^  ""■""^^  "'  '""««'«''  *°^o«« 
g.ve  testimony  m  regard  to  certain  facts  of  which  they 

mony  because  those  facts  are  not  personally  and  immedi- 

Tu  wereTo^  °  '*^'  ''°  ^"^  '^'"''  «»  ""'-y.  "-use 
you  were  not  an  eye- witness  of  its  innumerable  eventsf    Do 

yourse  f  can  make  no  use  of  his  observatory,  nor  comL- 

Brence' T^'r ''"•-••"o-'  Inart.histo;'and pbysf ca, 
science  the  d.scovery  of  the  Individual  is  the  discovery  of 
the  wo,  d,     ,  „    ,„  ,„  ,^^  ^  ^^^^  ^  mankind  c7me  L 

exi!  ^''^^''"^'^  «''»«S'>  Columbus,  and  learned  of  the 
existence  of  Keptune  through  Le  Verrier,  so  it  came  to 


343 


TBS  HPHrgBBTHmUlgrT  mOUBtlOH. 


\ 


undentand  tlie  mind  of  God  tlirongh  the  inspired  PropheU 
and  Apostles. 

&  It  is  frequenOy  urged  against  tlie  Bible  that  it  contains 
nothing  new.    Now,  it  is  true  that  the  Scriptures  contain 
those  truths  that  are  common  to  all  mankind— the  truths  of 
nature,  instinct,  and  reason.    In  this  the  Word  of  God 
coincides  with  many  things  contained  in  other  sacred  books, 
so-called.    And  this  is  an  argument  for  the  Bible  rather 
than  against  it.  We  hereby  see  that  it  is  a  Book  correspond- 
ing to  all  the  nobler  instincts  and  sentiments  of  man,  and 
that  it  is  adapted  to  all  his  conditions.  As  it  is  no  dishonor 
to  American  civilization  that  it  has  many  things  in  common 
with  uncivilized  races,  so  you  cast  no  cloud  on  the  grand 
precepts  of  the  Bible  by  showing  that  many  of  them  are  con- 
tained  in  the  Vedas  and  the  Zend-Avesta.   This  only  shows 
that  the  Bible,  like  the  Sabbath,  was  made  for  man  ;  and 
that  its  principles  are  such  as  must  commend  themselves  to 
man's  nobler  nature  everywhere.    The  Divinity  of  this 
Book  is  shown  by  the  perfection  of  its  Ideal  Humanity. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  the  Bible  contains  no  new  doctrines. 
The  Monotheism  of  Moses  was  new  to  polytheistic  Egypt 
at  the  time  of  its  first  announcement    That  a  Jew  should 
beun-Jewish,  and  world-wide  in  the  scope  of  his  phllan- 
thropy,  was  a  new  idea  to  the  Pharisees,  and  unexpected  by 
the  Gentiles,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.    And^ 
the  sight  of  a  dozen  Jews  that  had  thus  overcome  every 
selfishness  and  prejudice,  was  indeed  a  novel  spectacle  to 
the  world.  The  rite  of  Baptism  received  a  new  significance^ 
from  the  lips  of  Christ.    The  heathen  conception  of  sancti- 
fication  by  ablutions  and  expiations,  is  very  different  from 
the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  Holiness,  which  contem- 
plates not  only  the  spotless  purity  of  the  body,  but  also  of 
the  desires,  volitions,  thoughts,  and  conscience  (Heb.  ix, 

9, 14"  X,  22). 
'  There  must  be  something  peculiar  and  unique  about  the 
Bible,  since,  wherever  it  goes,  it  remodels  society,  gives 


THS  RUIfPHBST-: 


deflects  the  wry  cnrrents  of  histwy.    It  would  be  w  de  of 
the  mark  .0  reply  that  the  Homieh  Church  has  pLcuted 
and  done  her  part  to  bring  on  Europe  the  darkness  of  th; 

Sbfe  it  rTt'  '"  '°  *"  -'y  «"-«^e  had  taken 

Wlf  r„  .  n        """'  °^  ""•  """P'^'  ^"'^"S  abandoned  it 
herself,  to  follow  traditions  and  commandments  of  men 

Whereyer  tte  Bible  is  freely  circulated,  diligent^  rid 
must  coniri"°'T  •  ^°^  '^""•^'^ ""<="  » '"•"'-o 
.rin«  a.  U  mcnlcate.  In  common  with  other  venerated 

so%SZ.?""/"'°  °°''  "°"  ''"'  **  2™«  >•«<"«•«'»  it  i» 
so  vanou,ly  understood  and   interpreted.     They  would 

thence  mfer  that  U  cannot  be  the  Word  of  God.    NoTit 

must  be  admitted  that  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptr  Juon 

BuTth^'T  If  "°"^  "^^"-''"'^^'^  by  dSZltir. 
But  U,w  should  not  awaken  a  suspicion  in  regard  to  ita 

dmn,ty.    1.  could  not  be  otherwise  with  anything  Iched 

m  human  anguage.    lu  our  day.  uo  sooner  fs  aTfwTs^d 

by  the  legislature  than  it  is  differently  construed  by  law^rt 

and  judges.    The  Constitution  had  scarcely  been  raXd 

oyer  th?w*'..        ,"'""''  contending  there  is  oftentimes 

2w^.r^^  "'  ''"''•  "°'"~°"''  «"=•    ^  this  goes  to 
•how  that  words  are  inevitably  Hable  to  be  half  understood 
and  misunderstood.  ""uersiooa, 

do^lr'r"',!""^*'''"  ""''*""  "'  '"«  "^-^  <"  the 
thev^Id so  ifi  ^,''"'* *'"'  ""^  "'  «° "^iffo^-t  that 
nZ  r„l  ''■"'"-"y-  ^  -"an's  taste,  training,  and  nat- 
ural endowments  cannot  but  influence  his  cooc'eption  of 
What  he  sees  and  hears.  Articulate  the  word  "souS^u  a 
m.«d  company,  and  ««,  doctor  will  think  of  a  surgical  L 


844 


THS  BUMPHBET-BlinnBTT  DUCUaSIOH. 


Btramcnl ;  the  siOlor's  mind  will  run  to  a  narrow  passage  of 
water ;  the  ichthyologist  will  remember  a  species  of  fish  ; 
while  the  musician  will  be  reminded  of  musical  strains. 
The  cause  of  this  difference  is  not  so  much  in  the  word 
•'sound''  itself  as  in  the  individuals  who  hear  it.  It  is 
on  the  same  principle  that  men  take  different  meanings 
from  the  Scriptures.  Like  ventriloquists,  they  throw  their 
own  voices  into  it,  and  then  censure  it  if  they  do  not 
like  its  tone.  In  the  study  of  Scripture  it  is  necessary  to 
examine  every  word,  sentence,  and  statement  in  the  light 
of  its  age,  context,  occasion,  and  aim. 

But  this  objection  may  be  urged  against  Nature  as  well  as 
against  the  Bible.  From  age  to  age  man  has  been  reform- 
ing and  changing  hit  theories  of  the  Universe.  Is  the 
Universe,  therefore,  of  human  origin  t  Is  it  to  be  rejected 
as  a  fraud  ?  No.  But  why  not  treat  the  Scriptures— the 
Christian's  Bible— as  fairly  as  Nature— the  Deist's  Bible  ? 

But,  after  all,  the  different  interpretations  of  Scripture 
bear  mainly  on  unessential  matters.    They  do  not  refer  so 
much  to  the  faeU  of  Redemption  as  to  the  manner  and 
methods  of  those  facts.    All  Christians  are  agreed  in  re- 
gard to  the  Being  of  God ;  Reaemption  through  Christ ; 
and  the  necessity  of  Repentance,  Faith,  Love,  Righteous- 
ness, and  Holiness.    As  men  may  differ  in  their  notions 
about  the  earth,  and  yet  manage  to  get  their  sustenance 
from  its  ample  resources,  so  the  students  of  the  Bible  may 
vary  in  their  theological  views,  and  at  the  same  time  be  all 
Inheritors  of  Eternal  Life  from  the  riches  of  Divine  Grace. 
6.  Considerable  noise  is  sometimes  made  about  the  '*  dis- 
crepancies of  the  Scriptures."    Some  fool  has  collected  and 
collocated  a  lot  of  passages  and  called  them  "Self-contra- 
dictions of  the  Bible."   By  following  his  method  it  could  be 
shown  that  Shakspeare  was  the  greatest  ass  that  ever  lived ; 
that  Gibbon's  History  contains  not  **144i"  but  144,000 
"  self-contradictions  ";  and  that  even  EucUd'fl  theorems  and 
demonstrations  are  not  self -consistent. 


MB  TOMPHBBY-BBinnnT  DttCUaaiOH.  841 

.Jou,  we  confessedly  difficult  and  obscure  passages  in 
Ihe  Bible.  This  obscurity  k  caueed  by  a  combination  of 
circumstances : 

(1)  Different  writers  have  sometimes  used  the  same  words 
with  different  meanings.  Poets  took  liberties  with  langua-e 
that  historians  and  prophets  did  not  indulge  in.  Some 
Hebrew  words  had  acquired  meanings  in  the  time  of  Mala- 
chi  which  they  did  not  have  in  the  age  of  Moses.  The 
translator  had  to  study  each  writer's  peculiar  idioms,  men- 
tal  chai»cteristics.  and  age.  before  he  could  understand 
him.  and  clothe  his  thoughts  in  another  language.  In  this 
doubtless,  the  prof oundest  scholar  has  occasionally  failed! 
or  but  partly  succeeded. 

(^)  Our  present  version  of  the  Bible  is  sometimes  mis- 
understood because  the  English  language  has  passed  through 
vast  changes  since  the  age  of  King  James.  Some  words 
have  changed  their  meanings,  while  others  have  become  ob^ 

Tv\  l^T  '"::  '''"^'^^""^  ^'  ^^^^  ^^^^«  throughout  the 
English  Bible.    For  instance,  it  has  "  advertise  -  for  i7iform 

fr^."'l'  ^^^'  *'artUlery-for  armor  (1  Sam,  xx,  40); 
"  bestead -forn^t^aferf  (Is.  viii,  21);  -bonnets"for  c^ps  ol 
;ia^  CEx.  xxviii,40);  -by  and  by-  for  immsdiaiel^  (Mark 
Ji.2^;  -charity "for foe.  (1  Cor.  xiii,  13) ;  -convenient" 
for  becoming  (Eph.  v,  4);  "corn-  for  grain  (Luke  vi  1)  • 
•  daysman  -  for  umpire  (Job  ix.  83) ;  "hardly"  for  mY/J 
a.JUuUy  (Mat   xix   23);   «Measing"  for  Iging  (Ps.  iv,  2); 

/rih     II    1     !"  ^^'''  ^""'  ^^'  "neesings"  for  sn^ 
(Job  xli,  18);  -prevent"  for  antieipate  (Ps.  cxix   147) 

''provoke"  for ^»^(Heb.  x.  34);  -usury"  fo/intere^ 

^nt  'w    L  ^^'  ""^'^  ^^  '^"^  ^^'^'^P^^^  ^  Swinton's 
Bible  Word-Book."    Thus  the  Bible  is  liable  to  be  misun- 

derstood,  or  not  understood  at  all,  on  some  minor  points,  in 
consequence  of  a  circumstance-the  changeableness  of  Ian- 
guage-which  is  no  fault  of  its  own.    The  forthcoming 
version  will  be  free  from  this  misfortune. 
(«)  The  language  of  the  Bible  is  interwoven  with  cus- 


Ttn  HUMPHBXT-BEinnRT  maoouoRXf, 

toms  Mid  modes  of  thought  that  tre  well-nigh  unknown  t<y 
modems,  and  cspeciaDy  to  BuropeMis  and  Americana. 
This  ia  another  source  of  occasional  embarrassment.  We- 
must  know  all  about  those  early  times— the  fashions  of 
iresa ;  manner  of  salutation  ;  styles  of  furniture ;  social 
customs;  political  peculiarities;  and  religious  ceremonies— 
before  we  can  understand  the  Bible  to  a  nicety. 

But  it  is  certainly  irrational  to  conclude  that  it  is  "  sellf 
contradictory "  simply  because  it  is  not  everywhere  well 
understood.  Let  us  treat  the  Bible  like  any  other  book. 
Ho  one  aflfects  contempt  for  Shakspearc  because  his  English 
is  antiquated.  We  feel  that  we  have  In  Rawlinson's  Herod  • 
olus,  and  Jowett's  Plato  the  important  ideas  of  those  au- 
thors, though  some  minute  points  may  be  blurred.  We  al- 
ways decide  that  tho  language  of  an  ancient  writer  is  to  be 
explained  from  the  pecuHaritles  of  his  own  age,  and  not 
from  those  of  our  own.  Apply  these  principles  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  phantoms  of  *'  self-contradictions"  will 
▼anish.  A  good,  scholarly  commentator  is  a  great  assist* 
ance  in  this  matter.  Anything  that  throws  light  on  antiqr 
uityla  at  once  an  explanation  and  a  Tindication  of  Holy 
Writ,  which  is  understood  only  in  the  proportion  that  it  i» 
understood  self-cocsistently. 

&  The  remark  is  sometimes  made  that  the  Bible  la 
"coarse,*'  " vulgar."  •'indelicate,"  and  "obscene."  We 
have  already  seen  (Letter  ix.)  that  Infidels  cannot  consist- 
ently  say  anything  about  this.  But  let  us  consider  the 
objection  for  the  sake  of  others  that  may  not  be  in  their 
predicament. 

The  assertion  thai  the  Bible  is  more  '*  objectionable  "  in 
this  respect  than  other  venerated  books,  proves  nothing  but 
the  egregious  Ignorance  of  those  who  make  it.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  ancient  worship  of  Venus  was  nothing  but 
a  bestial  debauch.  Neumann  found  the  Thirteenth  Article 
of  the  "Catechism  of  the  Shamans"  too  disgusting  to 
'  lianirtate  (London,  16M.  p.  !»>.  The  "Asiatic  Researches  " 


THE  HUMTHRKY-BinwnBTT  DISCDgHON.  847 

wm  Show  you  ad  nauseam  that  the  literature  and  rites  of 
the  ancient  and  modern  Hindiis  and  Persians  have  always 
been  tainted  by  impurities.  The  Koran  contains  many  "  in- 
delicate" passages  (Chapters  ii,  vii,  xi.  xii,  xv,  xxxvii  etc 
etc  Sale's  trans.).  Of  all  venerated  writinga  the  Bible  is 
the  freest  from  what  its  enemies  call  "  objectionable  "  plain- 
ness.  It  has  given  but  the  minimum  of  such  truth  as  might 
pain  genuine  modesty. 

Wantonvm  is  always  a  feature  of  vulgarity.  There  may 
be  plainness  and  undisguisedness,  and  yet  no  indelicacy 
The  family  physician  is  not  coarse  because  he  asks  ques- 
tions and  gives  directions  in  his  professional  capacity,  that 
would  be  improper  at  an  evening  party.  A  witness  may 
narrate  all  he  knows  bearing  on  a  case  on  trial  in  a  crimi- 
nal court,  without  being  considered  obscene. 

The  Bible  is  simply  a  narrative  of  facts.  Such  matters 
as  fell  within  its  province  it  told  clearly,  and  without  eva- 
sion.  This  was  necessary  in  order  to  show  all  the  aspects 
of  human  nature.  The  Bible  is  a  truthful  witness  giving 
testimony  as  to  the  character  of  man.  It  Is  also  a  good 
physician,  propounding  plain  inquiries  and  prescribing  its 
remedies  without  mincing  its  words. 

••  Unto  the  pure  all  things  are  pure ;  but  unto  them  that 
are  defiled  and  unbelieving  is  nothing  pure"  (Tit.  i,  15). 
The  nasty-minded  will  find  food  for  lascivious  thoughts  in' 
a  treatise  on  physiology.  Even  a  glimpse  of  a  lady's  ankle 
will  turn  the  hearts  of  some  human  brutes  into  Sodoma 
There  are  those  whose  vile  passions  will  be  inflamed  by 
reading  Shakspeare.  Such  as  these  will,  of  course,  wrest  the 
Scriptures  unto  their  own  destruction.  But  the  manly  and 
pure-minded  will  find  in  them  only  a  full  and  faithful  nar- 
ration  of  Truth.  The  Bible  inculcates  modesty  on  men  and 
women,  as  you  will  see  by  consulting  such  passages  as  Ex 
XX.  20  ;  xxviil,  43  ;  1  Tim.  ii,  9,  10. 

We  should  instruct  children  about  the  Bible  as  we  teach 
them  about  the  human  body.    Whilst  we  talk  less  to  them 


mbont  some  l«rts  than  others,  and  pennlt  them  to  regard 
gome  parts  as  "less  honorable"  than  others,  we  should 
teach  them  to  regard  every  portion  as  necessary  to  the 
whole,  and  aH  as  the  workmanship  ot  God  (1  Cor.  xii, 

2^-35). 

7.  The  charge  is  frequently  made  against  the  Bible,  but 
moro  particularly  against  the  Old  Testament,  that  it  sanc- 
tions cruelty  and  inhumanity.  Honest  minds  have  been 
puzzled  over  this  apparent  fact.  It  behooves  us,  then,  to 
pause  and  ponder  over  it.  Perhaps  we  can  best  reach 
the  true  solution  of  it  by  means  of  a  few  distinct  con- 
siderations: 

(1)  In  regard  to  any  given  case  of  alleged  atrocity,  we 
should,  first  of  all.  see  whether  it  had  the  Divine  sanction 
or  not.  The  Jews  were  sometimes  guilty  of  taking  ven- 
geance  into  their  own  hands.  In  such  an  event  they  were 
inexcusable  criminals. 

(2)  It  is  never  fair  to  pass  Judgment  on  any  seeming  se- 
verity until  its  circumstances  and  antecedents  have  all  been 
ascertained.  You  look  over  a  field  and  see  afar  off  a  woman 
whipping  a  diild.    Tou  only  see  the  flogging.    You  hear 
the  shrill  whix  of  the  lithe  switch  as  it  falls  thick  and  fast, 
every  stroke  bringing  out  a  more  vigorous  shriek  from  the 
writhing  victim.  Your  sympathies  are  at  once  with  the  little 
boy.  You  are  ready  to  pronounce  the  woman  inhuman.  But 
suppose  you  draw  near  and  inquire  into  the  affair.  Suppose 
you  discover  that  the  woman  is  the  boy's  mother;  that  she 
IB  an  intelligent  lady;  that  her  little  son  has  been  disobe- 
dient,  though  frequently  forewarned;  that  he  has  been 
truant,  untruthful,  quarrelsome,  incorrigible.    You  change 
your  mind  about  the  matter.    You  regard  the  oastigation 
not  only  as  just  but  benevolent    It  is  exactly  so  as  we  look 
back  at  the  slaughter  of  the  Midianites  and  Canaanltes.    If 
we  look  only  at  their  final  destmcUon,  we  are  apt  to  say 
their  doom  was  unmerited.  But  when  we  search  sacred  and 
profane  hiat<»y.  and  find  that  they  were  the  most  corrupt. 


TMM  BUMPHBST-BBinrKFT  DIBOnSSIOV. 


849 


nnrighteous.  villainous,  crime-abandoned,  and  blood-thirsty 
tribes  in  the  whole  world,  we  cannot  but  conclude  that 
their  treatment  was  not  so  very  inexcusable  after  all.  If 
ever  desperate  and  murderous  savages  deserved  summary 
punishment,  they  were  the  Midianites  and  Canaanites.  The 
Bashi-bazouks,  Modocs.  and  followers  of  Sittmg  Bull  are 
almost  gentlemen  in  comparison  with  them. 

But  granting  that  they  deserved  the  penalty,  does  it  fol- 
low that  the  Israelites  had  a  right  to  inflict  it  ?    I  answer 
that  they  Tiad,  if  the  Almighty  is  the  Ruler  of  the  Universe  ; 
if  he  has  a  right  to  authorize  his  rational  creatures  to  apply 
the  penalties  of  his  outraged  laws;  and  if  he  did  so  authorize 
Moses  and  his  successors.    If  the  Commonwealth  may  em- 
power a  sheriff  to  execute  a  murderer,  and  that  without 
bringing  the  least  reproach  upon  his  character,  why  might 
not  the  Lord  have  made  Moses  and  Joshua  the  executioners 
of  the  Midianites  and  Canaanites?    And  if  they  were  so 
made,  why  charge  them  with  inhumanity,  any  more  than 
a  sheriff  and  his  assistants  at  an  executiont 

Will  you  reply  that  such  severity  is  unworthy  of  God? 
that  a  Book  which  records  a  sanction  of  silch  proceedings 
cannot  be  superhuman?    I  will  answer  by  asking.  Is  Nature 
then,  ahuman  invention?   Is  she,  too,  unworthy  of  a  Divine 
Creator?    She  is  exposed  to  this  objection  as  much  as  the 
Bible.    Look  at  the  ravages  of  her  Floods,  Droughts.  Pes- 
tilences. Thunderbolts.  Earthquakes,  and  Volcanoes.'  and 
see  if  her  annals  are  not  fuUer  of  judgments  and  severities 
than  even  the  Old  Testament    It  will  pay  you  to  read  on 
this  subject  the  third  Letter  of  Watson's  Reply  to  Paine- 
that  book  so  unfamiliar  to  Infidels,  though  they  talk  a  vast 
deal  about  hearing  both  sides  before  deciding. 

Instead  of  nursing  a  mawkish  sentimentality  over  the 
fate  of  the  Midianites.  let  us  rather  learn  to  realize  that  "sin 
is  exceeding  sinful."  and  that  "the  wages  of  sin  is  death." 
And  let  us  not  lack  candor  to  admit  that  the  Divine  Gov- 
«rnmen^  like  human  governments  to-day.  may  have  vested 


f 


gil  THB  HUMPSBET-BKIWETT  DISCUBilOH. 

men  with  authority  to  adminiflter  the  penalties  of  its  capL 

tal  crimes. 

a  But  the  commonest  ohjection  of  all  in  these  days  is, 
that  the  Bible  is  at  variance  with  Science.  On  this  objec 
tion  it  is  proper  to  observe: 

(1)  That  it  is  urged,  for  the  most  part,  by  second-class 
scientists,  and  more  vehemently  still,  by  men  who  are  no 
scientists  at  alL  Allusions  to  this  "  variance  "  are  compar- 
atively rare  in  Spencer's,  Tyndall's,  and  Darwin's  writiugs. 
Such  scientists  as  Bacon,  Newton,  Boyle.  Herschel,  Mur- 
chison,  Davy.  Brewster,  Faraday,  Moree,  Whewell,  Agassiz, 
were  not,  in  their  time,  alarmed  by  this  alleged  "conflict." 
And  at  the  present  day,  it  seems  to  arouse  no  apprehension 
in  the  minds  of  men  like  Argyll,  Gladstone,  Sir  William 
Thomson,  Guyot.  Mivart,  Dawson,  Prof.  Owens,  Dana, 
Henry,  Peters, Winchell.  So  fearless  of  the  result  are  such 
Christian  gentlemen  as  William  E.  Dodge,  William  Thaw, 
Henry  W.  Sage,  John  0.  Green,  George  H.  Stuart,  that 
they  have  made  munificent  bequests  to  promote  Science 
and  education.  There  need  be  no  scare  or  panic  on  ac- 
count of  a  war  of  extermination  between  Science  and  the 

Bible. 

It  should  be  remembered  in  this  connection  that  some 
scientists  are  at  fault,  as  well  as  some  theologians.  They 
are  disqualified  by  their  very  position  to  be  the  best  judges 
of  moral  truth.  What  Tyndall  said  of  Newton  will  apply 
to  physical  scientists  generally;  "When  the  human  mind 
has  achieved  greatness  and  given  evidence  of  extraordinary 
power  in  any  domain,  there  is  a  tendency  to  credit  it  with 
similar  power  in  all  other  domains.  Thus  theologians  have 
found  comfort  and  assurance  in  the  thought  that  Newton 
dealt  with  the  question  of  revelation,  forgetful  of  the  fact 
that  the  very  devotion  of  his  powers,  through  all  the  best 
years  of  his  life,  to  a  totally  different  class  of  ideas,  not  to 
speak  of  any  natural  disqualification,  tended  to  render  him 
lest  Instead  of  more  competent  to  deal  with  theological 


ITHB  HUKPHBET-BBNNBTT  DISOUfiSIOM. 


851 


«nd  historic  questions  "  (Adv.  of  Seience).  In  addition  to 
this  disqualifying  influence  of  an  exclusively  scientific 
etudy,  some  scientific  men  show  a  tendency  to  magnify  the 
^discrepancy  and  widen  the  breach  between  Science  and 
Heligion.  It  is  noteworthy  that  treatises  on  the  "  recon- 
-ciliation  **  of  the  two  <!ome  almost  entirely  from  the  relief- 
ious  side. 

(2)  It  is  unreasonable  to  speak  of  an  antagonism  betweea 
the  Bible  and  Science,  where  Science  is  not  fixed  and  estab- 
lished.   Science,  generally  speaking,  is  in  a  transitions^ 
state,  subject  to  daily  modifications  and  readjustments;  and 
this  is  especially  true  of  those  branches  of  Science  that  are 
-said  to  contradict  the  Scriptures.    Even  astronomy  is,  ia 
4nany  respects,  vacillating  and  fluctuating.    It  is  an  "exact" 
science  only  in  a  limited  sense.    Mathematicians  have  de- 
termined the  distance  of  the  sun  from  the  earth  variously, 
ibetween  five  millions  and  ninety -five  millions  of  miles  (Dra- 
per's Conflict  bet.  Bel.  and  BcL,  pp.  173-4);  and  this  ques- 
tion is  still  unsettled.     The  ^reat  prevalence  of  round 
numbers  in  astronomical  calculations  is  rather  suspicious, 
showing  that  they  are  at  best  but  approximations  to  truth. 
•Geology  is  more  unsteady  still.    Take  up  the  last  edition  of 
«ny  work  on  the  subject,  and  you  will  find  it  to  be  '*  re- 
<vised,"  '*  corrected,"  and  **ohanged."    One  of  Mr.  Huxley's 
Lay  Sermons  is  on  "  Geological  Meform,"    The  Evolution 
Theory  doubtless  contains  some  truth;  but  it  is  yet  in  Its 
infancy.     Prof.  Tyndall  "deems  it  indeed  certain  that 
these  views  (of  Darwin  and  Spencer)  will  undergo  modifica- 
tion "  (Advancement  of  Science).    Until  Darwinism  finds 
Its** missing  links,"  and  stands  demonstrated,  we  tare  not 
prepared  to  alter  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  say:  **Our  father, 
which  art  in  Africa."    It  is  folly  to  talk  of  a  disagreement 
l)etween  the  Bible  and  such  departments  of  Science  as  afo 
continually  changing. 

(3)  Such  things  as  Science  has  finally  settled  corroborate 
the  Scriptures.    You  ha;re  incredulously  asked  questions 


Tin  smmniBT^-snnnBTT  Doouuios. 


about  the  Deluge.  X  will  answer  that  Geology  is  » 
witness  for  Ctenesis.  The  ahell  on  the  mountain- to{> 
eontains  still  the  lingering  roar  of  a  former  cataclysm. 
You  would  do  well  to  read  Hugh  Miller's  **  Testimony  of 
the  Bocks  "  on  this  subject.  Layard's  ezeavations  in  Nine- 
Teh  hare  confirmed  many  points  of  Biblical  archaology. 
Modern  chemistry  has  proTed  that  "all  nations*'  are,  sei 
entifically  speaking,  '*  of  one  blood"  (Acts  xvii,  9C;  comp. 
1  Cor.  XV,  SS).  Physiology  has  confirmed  that  much- 
fought  clause  of  the  Decalogue:  "Visiting  the  iniquity  of 
the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  gen- 
eration.** And  the  law  of  natural  generation,  transmitting 
physical  defects  and  mental  tortuosities,  does  not  add  the 
important  words,  too  often  overlooked,  "  Cflhem  that  hate 
flM^-v-of  those  who  themselves  repeat  the  sins  of  tb«ir 
parents.  Ctonuine  Science  has  brought  Its  gold,  and  f  rauc- 
Incense,  and  myrrh,  to  the  feet  of  the  Bible.  Herodotus 
was  formerly  disbelieved,  almost  with  hootings,  on  sccount 
of  the  "incredibility'*  of  his  narrativea  But  reeent  inves- 
tigations have  changed  that  sneering  ineredulity  into  enthu- 
siastic admiration.  It  has  been  so  with  the  Bible.  Igno- 
rance has  scoffed  at  Its  testimonies ;  but  modern  delviogs 
Into  the  remains  of  antiquity  and  the  meanings  of  Nature, 
are  vindicating  it  most  triumphantly. 

(4)  Whatever  the  state  of  the  question  maybe,  it  is  clearly 
Inaccurate  to  nay  that  Nature  and  the  Bible  are  at  variance 
The  exact  truth  is,  that  only  the  human  inierpretation$  of 
each  occasionally  clash.  Grant  the  commentator  the  lib- 
erty which  the  scientist  claims,  and  we  need  hear  no  more 
about  a  collision  between  Bcripture  and  Science.  Let  the 
Biblical  critic  modify  his  interpretations,  where  demon- 
strated truth  requires  It,  Just  as  the  natural  philosopher 
modifies  his  interpretations,  in  his  department,  when  new 
Uf  ht  demands  it— let  this  be  done,  and  all  will  be  peace, 
good-will,  and  cooperation. 

Put  these  facts  and  eonsiderations  together— that  the  best 


T»  TOMPHMMBinraw  DMCUSSIOK.  858 

«|dentlsts  have  not  recogniEed  a  conflict  between  the  Bible 

S  esUl  rr''  "^'  ^**"^'  "«^"y  undersTdftil; 
the  established  truths  of  Science  have  corroborated  tTe 
Scnptures ;  that  theologians  and  scientists  Zlm 
theirjespective  interpretations  as  new  knowIedL  is  sJ 

anTu  X  b  '  "^'  ^'"^  '^^^  '^'  consideratronstg  r 
and  It  will  become  manifest  that  there  is  no  cause  Ldls! 

CX7Z  "^ ''''-''' ''  "^^'^  ^-^  -^  ^  -^-^ 

In  my  eighth  letter  I  referred  you  to  some  excellent 
works  bearing  on  this  subject  Let  o.e  again  cormeod 
them  to  your  attentive  perusal.  commend 

aJT^T  "^^  ^^^"^  '^^  subject  a  dispassionate  can 

did  and  thorough  examination.  Many  of  the  purest  C^ 
and  clearest  heads  of  the  world  have  pondered  a^r^etS 
over  that  singular  Book-Tni.  Bible.  They  became  S!^ 
.iuced  that  it  was  indeed  the  Word  of  God.  ^Us To  ^e 
than  fair  for  you  to.welgh  the  reason,  they  have  giverfor 

d  wth^biri^  '' ''  ^T  ^'^^  ^'^"  ^  Perplexities^con'el: 
ed  with  believing  and  accepting  the  Bible;  but  to  everv 

thoughtful  man  then,  are  far  greater  perplexities  inTo7 

nectionwith  disbelieving  and  rejecting  it.    TheBibLwL 

opened  toward  the  morning  twiiignt.  'prom  the  ve^fi"" 

the  capital  letters  composing  the  name  of  The  Savioub 

WHICH  IS  Chbist  the  Lobd  could  be  easily  read     That 

was  the  viUl  matter.    Like  Simeon,  mankin'd  ^^d  S..' 

But'nth         J''      ^^^  ''"''  *^^  salvation"  (Luke  ii,  30). 
But  other  sublime  truths  have  been  becoming  legible.    Life 
and  Immortality  are  already  brought  to  light.  '  Dim  tn 
tence  are  appearing  more  and  more  distinctly.    But  there 

llLf  ,r'xf'"^'  "^'^^  ^^  '''  ""^'y  -^  ^^^ough  a 
g  ws  darkly.    No  lexicon  has  ever  given  aU  the  meanings 

Chrft  r,?°i^"«  ^«^^'  ETERNITY  I  O  to  know  the 
Christ  of  the  Scnpturea  a.  our  Redeemer  and  Example! 
CUngi.^  to  Mm,  we  shall  penetrate  the  mysteries  of  Fan 


r-Bsmm  uuoomiov* 

rity  only  to  diMover  new  bleasedness.  "  Now  I  know  in 
part;  but  then  shall  I  know  eTen  as  also  I  am  known ''d 
Oor.  xil,  13X         Yours  sincerely,       G.  H.  Humphbet. 


MR.    BBNNBTT* 

Rkt.  G.  H.  nxjMPHBBT,  Dear  <5?ir:  I  have  thought  the 
arguments  In  some  of  your  former  letters  were  rather  weak 
and  sophistical,  but  your  last  letter,  in  this  respect,  sur- 
passes all  the  others.    If  you  have  no  better  arguments  to 
bring  in  support  of  your  belief,  I  cannot  see  how,  as  a 
seosible  man,  you  can  continue  to  give  your  allegiance  to  it. 
You  seem  at  length  to  be  satisfied  with  the  cases  of 
clerical  licentiousness  and  fllthiness  that  I  have  presented 
you,  and  would  fain  turn  and  asperse  me  for  enumerating 
them,  when  you  must  well  know  I  did  so  in  self-defense. 
With  a  chuckle  you  paraded  the  licentiousness  of  a  few 
Infidels,  and  argued  that  because  they  had  done  those  things 
their  doctrines  must  necessarily  be  false.    To  offset  those 
cbarges,  many  of  which  were  untrue,  I  called  your  atten- 
tion to  some  of  the  sins  of  your  holy  brethren,  and  I  am 
glad  if  I  have  succeeded  in  satisfying  you.    If,  however, 
you  are  not  fully  satisfied,  or  it  you  delight  in  magnifying 
the  mistakes  of  some  unbelievers,  I  will  try  and  get  you  up 
another  chapter  of  the  sins  of  divine  scoundrels  who  seduce 
the  young  and  inexperienced  and  blast  their  reputations  for 
life,  because,  under  the  guise  of  being  shepherds  of  the 
flock  and  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  have  the  power  to 
corrupt  and  despoil  the  ewe  lambs  placed  under  their  pro- 
tection.   I  assure  you  there  are  thousands  of  glaring  cases 
of  this  kind  that  I  have  not  even  hinted  at.    Friends  are 
neatly  every  day  sending  in  accounts  of  ministerial  lechery 
and  adultery  that  I  have  not  mentioned.    It  Is  in  vain  that 
yon  try  to  evade  the  odium  of  their  conduct  by  calling 


BUICPHBSr-BENKBTT  DISCUSSION.  858 

them  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing.    There  are  a  large  number 
of  cases  where  clergymen  far  advanced  in  life,  who  have 
broken  the  bread  of  life  from  twenty-flve  to  forty  years 
have  been  so  weak  as  to  fall  an  easy  prey  to  their  fleshly 
lusts,  and  again,  large  numbers  who  have  been  guilty  of  the 
gravest  indiscretions  are  still  allowed  to  serve  in  the  temples 
«s  servants  of  the  Most  High,    ft  is  hardly  worth  your 
whUe  to  condemn  them  for  the  commission  of  adul^ry, 
when  your  Master  faUed  to  condemn  it  in  the  case  o7a 
person  who  was  "caught  in  the  very  act."    It  Is  not  at  all 
mprobable  that  those  sinning  clergymen  argued  that  if 
Jesus  d^  not  see  fit  to  condemn  adulteiy  when  he  was  on 

TsamroZi  """  """^  """''""  *•""  ^-'  *-»^«-«^ 

the  Church  If  they  presume  to  allude  to  the  numerous 
cnmes  committed  by  its  priests,  when  the  object  is  to  show 
that  they  are  hypocrites,  pretending  to  be  better  and  holier 
^an  they  are.  and  that  they  are  «,  sensual  and  licentious  a. 

HaT  """"t  "  ^°"  ^^  ""'  '•"'  ""»« ••<"°o"»  cases 
alluded  to.  you  should  not  have  begun  the  game  by  harping 

about  the  sins  of  unbelievers.    I  repeat  that  I  am  glad"? 

at  last  your  taste  for  that  kind  of  literature  Is  satisfied 

You  seem  rather  to  question  my  statement  that  distin- 
guished writers  have  believed  the  Jews  were  cannibals,  and 
eal  upon  me  to  give  names.  I  will  mention  the  na,;,  of 
Voltaire.  He  is  somewhat  distinguished,  and  you  will  find 
hm  remarks  upon  the  subject  on  page  X59.  voL  i,  of  hi. 
Philosophical  Dictionary. 

I  do  not  wish  to  contend  further  with  you  about  Robes- 
Pierre.  I  showed  clearly  from  his  own  words  and  from 
theopmions  of  his  contemporaries  that  he  was  a  religious 
.ealot  who  still  retained  a  portion  of  his  Christian  faith  and 
education.  He  was  not  at  heart  so  bad  a  man  as  his  acts 
would  seem  to  show  him.  He  ran  wild  in  some  of  his  ideas 
of  political  reform;  and  when  hU  entire  nation  wa.  in  • 


THS  HUJiFBB»T-BMHi*'rf  xmcvsnofff. 

ftate  of  freniy,  lie  ftilcd  to  pre«erw  that  calmness  and  thai 
high  sense  of  hnman  righu  which,  as  a  leader,  he  ought  to 
haTe  maintained.  If  it  gratifies  your  hatred  of  Infidels  to 
continue  to  call  Robespierre  an  Infidel,  I  shall  not  attempt 
to  prevent  y^u;  hut  he  was  not  an  Infidel  in  the  sense  that 
Mirabeau,  Voltaire,  and  Paine  were.  He  was  not  regarded 
as  an  Infidel,  and  did  not  fraternize  with  them.  In  a  word, 
he  was  a  wild,  religious,  political  adventurer,  who  cooper- 
ated with  Christians  quite  as  much  as  with  Infidels,  and 
whose  severity  was  shown  quite  as  much  against  Infidels 
as  against  Christians.  You  well  know  he  signed  Thomas 
Paine's  death  warrant,  whose  life  was  spared  by  a  mere 
fortuitous  circumstance,  and  that  he  sent  many  Infidels  to 
Ihe  guillotine  during  his  mad  career. 

You  show  your  venom  at  Ingersoll,  and  possibly  may 
think  it  argumentative  and  dignified  to  call  him  "Poor 
Ingersoll."    He  evidently  disturbs  you  as  much  as  he  did 
your  clerical  brethren  in  San  Francisco.  Instead  of  answer- 
ing his  rhetoric  and  his  logic,  they  called  him  hard  names. 
You  do  the  same.    Perhaps  epithets  and  slander  are  the 
natural  weapons  of  a  Christian  when  reason  and  argument 
are  not  at  hand.    Despite  your  hatred  of  Ingersoll,  you 
eannoi  successfully  deny  that  his  popularity  was  never  so 
great  as  at  this  moment,  and  that  his  heavy  blows  upon 
this  greatest  sham  which  the  world  has  ever  known  are 
sending  it,  tottering  and  reeling,  to  the  earth.    Abuse  him 
as  much  as  you  will.    Call  him  hard  names  if  you  wish  to. 
His  utterances  are  wielding  a  powerful  influence  over  the 
entire  land,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  and  you  and 
all  the  satellites  of  a  false  theology  cannot  prevent  it.    If 
you  can  prove  his  assertions  false,  why  do  you  not  do  so  t 
If  he  talsifies  history,  why  do  you  not  show  it  ?    Probably 
it  is  easier  to  call  names  and  wield  epithets  and  abuse. 
Perhaps  he  ought  to  be  grateful  to  you  for  telling  him  how 
to  use  his  money,  but  it  it  doubtful  if  he  is.    It  is  hardly 
ifortli  while  for  you  to  let  the  indebtedness  of  Paine  Hall 


TBM  HUMPSBBT-BKrHXTT  M8CU88I0K.  S57 

trouble  you  too  much.    The  hundred  millions  of  dollars 

ati':  ""uT  r "'"  '^-""^^  ^^^^  --  --<!! 

0  P^„?TT  I     :"" """"  ^'"^  ''''''  ^^^  '"^  *^  "nanagement 

lur.  ;    "^"''*  ''''  ^^'"^'"^^^  ^  ^^^^  ''^  seventy-five 
housand  dollars  of  indebtedness  will  be  paid  long  befor! 

Z^T^'  mmions  Of  dollars  of  churc'h  debts^Jl^:: 

1  Jd?!  Im""  ""'^^^  establish  it  as  a  fact  that  at  least  one 
Jrl  tw      T"'  ""^ ""''  ^'''''"'^^'  ^^"^  y-^  <l«ote  a  letter 

Tidual.  There  may  be  a  species  of  cruelty  iu  removing  tlii. 
ast  peg  upon  which  you  would  be  glad  to  hang  youf  '^ 
lorn  hope,  but  it  is  better  that  the  truth  be  told,  tLugh  you 
do  fan  to  establish  a  single  point  in  this  discussion  Lei 
me  give  the  whole  truth  about  Voltaire  which  you  but  pa 

changed  his  views  or  because  he  was  afraid  to  die  with  2 

inlnt  wA       ''"^""  ""^'"'^  ^^^  connection  with  it.  and 
f  trLSj  H     *«f  «^«^P*^«titionhehad  to  so  write  that 

hoi  Z  ?r"'"'  ''  ^^'''^'  "^'^^  ''  ^-P<>«-We  for  men  to 
Bhow  that  there  really  was  heresy  in  his  writings.    In  tho^ 

S  tL'T  ^^'^«^-'^^*^--  to  incur  the  risk  of  th" 
rack  the  gallows  or  the  fagot  In  this  world,  and  an  endless 
hell  ,0  the  next.    Voltaire  was  trained  among  the  Jesuits 
and  he  became  a  consummate  master  of  their  art  for  he 
well  knew  that  he  wrote  with  the  halter  around  hi  It 
and  he  had  to  launch  his  thunderbolts  of  sarcasm  aS 
the  Church  and  the  fathers  with  at  least  an  appearand 
outward  respect  for  them  and  their  dogmas 

It  was  because  of  this  mental  tyranny  that  Voltaire  was 
compelled  to  die  like  a  Jesuit.    He  wished  to  be  Zt^Z 

l^l'TtT  "^  ^"'^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  ^""*^*i»  -^^  -ot  as 
an  outcast,  which  would  have  been  the  case  had  he  persist- 

entlyand  eutwardly  maintained  his  heretical  view^    The 


ij 

i 

i\ 


TMM  ■UMPHBBT'BSNKXTT  DISOUSBION. 


■ 


Abb6  Gauthier  confessed  Voltaire  and  received  from  Lim 
a  profession  of  faith,  by  whicli  he  declared  he  would  die  in 
the  Catholic  religion  in  which  he  was  born.  When  this 
circumstance  became  known,  it  offended  enlightened  men 
more  than  it  edified  the  devotees.  The  curate  of  St.  Sup- 
lice  ran  to  his  parishioner  (Voltaire)  who  received  him  with 
politeness  and  gave  him,  as  was  his  custom,  a  handsume 
offering  for  the  poor.  But  mortified  that  the  Abbe  had 
anticipated  him,  the  curate  pretended  that  he  ought  to  have 
required  a  particular  profession  of  faith,  and  an  ezpiess 
disavowal  of  all  the  heretical  doctrines  which  Voltaire  had 
maintained.  The  Abbe  declared  that  by  requiring  an  abjur- 
ation of  eyerything  wrong  all  would  be  lost.  During  this 
dispute  Voltaire  recovered.  Irene  was  played  and  the  pro- 
fession of  faith  was  forgotten.  But  at  the  moment  of  his 
relapse  the  curate  returned  to  Voltaire  absolutely  resolved 
not  to  inter  him  if  he  could  not  obtain  the  desired  recanta- 
tion. The  curate  was  one  of  those  men  who  are  a  mixture 
of  hypocrisy  and  imbecility.  He  spoke  with  the  obstinate 
persuasivepess  of  a  maniac  and  the  flexibility  of  a  Jesuit. 
He  wished  to  bring  Voltaire  to  acknowledge  at  least  the 
diyine  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  —  a  dogma  he  was  more 
attached  to  than  any  other-~and  for  this  purpose  he  one 
day  aroused  him  from  his  lethargy  by  shouting  in  his  ear: 
**Do  you  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ?*'  where- 
upon answered  Voltaire:  "  In  the  name  of  Qod  speak  to  me 
no  more  of  that  good  man,  but  let  me  die  in  peace.'*  Vol- 
taire died  on  the  80th  of  May,  1778. 

The  curate  was  dissatisfied  with  his  recantation  —  if 
recantation  it  can  with  any  propriety  be  called  —  and  de- 
larcd  that  he  was  obliged  to  refuse  him  burial,  but  he  was 
not  authorized  in  this  refusal,  for  according  to  law  it  ought 
to  have  been  preceded  by  excommunication.  He  was 
buried  at  Sec  tiers  and  the  priests  agreed  not  to  interfere 
with  the  funeral.  However,  two  pious  ladies  of  distin. 
gaiihed  rank,  and  very  great  devotees,  wrote  to  the  bishop 


f 


>.l\ 


TBM  BUMPHBBT-BSirNBTT  DZSCU8SI0N. 


859 


of  Troyes  to  engage  him  in  opposing  the  burial ;  but  fortu- 
nately  for  the  honor  of  the  bishop,  the  letters  did  not  reach 
him  till  after  the  funeral,  and  he  consequently  made  no 
interference.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  Church  hated  Vol- 
taire  after  his  death  as  much  as  they  had  feared  him  while 
living,  for  according  to  their  own  statement  he  is  now  a 
saint  in  glory,  and  yet  they  admit  that  he  died  as  he  lived— 
a  friend  of  Reason  and  the  enemy  of  Superstition;  for  his 
last  words  were  that  he  regarded  Jesus— the  man-god  of  the 
Church — only  as  a  man. 

Condorcet  concludes  his  admirable  Life  of  Voltaire  with 
these  words:  **It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  Voltaire, 
when  in  the  height  of  his  glory,  exercised  throughout 
Europe  a  power  over  the  minds  of  men  hitherto  unparal- 
leled. The  expressive  words,  *  The  little  good  I  have  done 
is  my  best  of  works,*  was  the  unaffected  sentiment  that  held 
possession  of  his  soul." 

Thus  let  it  stand  forever  recorded  that  Voltaire  did  not 
recant  his  anti-theological  views,  but  that  he  made  only  a 
formal  general  confession  to  Abbe  Oauthier  simply  to  Lave 
an  honorable  burial  The  great  anxiety  of  Christian  ma- 
ligners  to  make  it  appear  that  the  Sage  of  Ferney  died  a 
horrible  death,  imploring  the  pardon  of  God  and  Jesus,  is 
thus  effectually  thwarted.  It  would  be  a  matter  of  general 
congratulation  could  every  Christian  devotee  from  this  time 
henceforth  desist  from  placing  himself  in  the  ridiculous 
light  of  trying  to  show  that  Voltaire  did  what  he  certainly 
did  not  do.  Lamartine  pays  the  following  eloquent  tribute 
to  Voltaire:  "  If  we  judge  of  men  by  what  they  have  done, 
then  Voltaire  is  incontestably  the  greatest  writer  of  Mod- 
ern Europe.  No  one  has  caused  through  the  power  of 
influence  alone,  and  the  perseverance  of  his  will,  so  great  a 
commotion  in  the  minds  of  men.  His  pen  aroused  a  word, 
and  shook  a  far  mightier  empire  than  that  of  Charlemagne, 
the  European  empire  of  a  theocracy.  His  genius  was  not 
farci  but  Ught,    Heaven  destined  him  not  to  destry  but  to 


fn  SUMFHRET-BSinnTT  Duoumoii. 


'i 


lllnmliiate,  tnd  wbereTer  lie  trod  light  followed  him,  for 
Reason  (which  is  light)  had  destined  him  to  be  first  her 
poet,  then  her  apostle,  and  lastly  her  idoL" 

I  am  glad  you  have  the  frankness  to  acknowledge  that 
Paine  did  not  recant  on  his  death-bed,  but  died  a  firm  Infi- 
del as  he  had  lived.  In  this  respect  you  are  far  more  hon- 
orable than  your  brethren  of  the  clergy,  who  every  year, 
for  more  than  seventy-five  years,  have  declared  that  be  died 
denounciog  his  unbelief,  and  calling  upon  Jesus  to  save 
him.  More  lying  has  been  done  by  the  clergy  of  America 
in  this  one  direction  than  they  will  ever  be  able  to  atone 
for.  The  story,  however,  about  Paine's  recanting  is  no 
more  false  than  that  about  Yoltaire*s  recanting.  Your 
closing  fling  about  Paine*s  decanting  is  rather  characteristic 
of  you,  but  you  had  better  have  omitted  it.  It  may  show  a 
little  wit,  but  it  is  devoid  of  truth.  The  calumnies  that 
Paine  was  a  drunkard  are  equally  as  false  as  that  he  recant- 
ed upon  his  death-bed.  Both  are  the  reiterated  lies  of 
Christian  clergymen. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Bible.  Before  it  can  justly  be  assumed  to  be  divine,  it 
must  be  shown  to  be  superhuman.  If  there  is  nothing  in  it 
that  man  could  not  have  written  it  is  the  height  of  absurd- 
ity to  say  that  it  is  so  grand  that  God  must  have  written  it. 
I  asked  you  to  give  me  some  proofs  of  its  being  the  work 
of  God.  You  have  failed  to  do  so.  It  is  impossible  for 
you  to  give  them.  Like  all  other  books  in  the  world  it  is 
of  human  origin,  and  of  human  origin  alone,  and  of  rather 
low  human  origin  at  that.  There  is  not  a  passage  in  it  that 
a  man  of  fair  literary  ability  could  not  have  written.  There 
is  nothing  in  it  that  proves  a  supernatural  power.  There  is 
nothing  in  it  worthy  of  the  Supreme  Power  of  the  Uni- 
verse. 

I  asked  yon  to  prove  to  me  that  there  is  a  power  aboTO, 
outside  of,  or  independent  of  the  Universe.  You  did  not 
attempt  it,  and  it  is  doubtless  well  you  did  not,  for  it  if 


fern  tlr^  ^  *  """^  »  P*"'«'  «'''"»•    A»  I  said  be- 

you  not  gi,e  your  reason,  for  such  belief  ,  "^^e  BM 

"o  morTrr "'  '"'  ""••    '^''«  ">-  -"<•  wrote  it  Le" 
L  fit  t'h    ".^ '  ««Pe-atural  power  than  wedo  at  thi'day 

prewDce,  wa.  far  less  understood  then  than  now. 

the  Kble  w"  '°  "'""'  "^  "^^^  ^  *•">  ''■"'°°'"'  Write"  of 
fte  Bible  were  controlled  by  God.  they  did  not  say  so 

There  u  scarcely  a  write,  in  the  whole  eighty  bo^s  Z 
c^ud  ng  the  apocorpha,  who  eren  claims  thaf  he  had  d Wn. 

rr-to-vss  "1?^  -r  "*  --^  -  "^ 

weredoiLl  .^       The  writers  did  not  claim  that  they 

Tey  were  IT'*'""'^  ""'°  """"'^  "•'""'»«  ""«  "o^el 
iney  were  writing,  employing  their  own  laneusee  and 
stating  it  in  their  own  wav  Tf  ti.«„  -  """S^'Se  and 
their  w«~  „  •.•      -     °    ^*    "  '"ey  were  conscious  that 

tS  27m  T,"  *"  ^'^- "'  *•'  "«  ""^  "•""'o'l'-g  them. 
c?aTmT„?„  T  """^''  '""*  "*  •»•  I  "«'«  that  i^^ 
tenTh!!  «^    '  '""^'""'  ^'""'  "^'^  »»"«  books  were  writ- 

^z  mttiTr":'  r  """•*"•  "■  '"■""^  --«»- 

T..I.H  '    '^"'^  "'  P"«^  "'  of  probability. 

1  asked  you  to  show  how.  if  even  an  individual  received 

".r.:  couM^r  ^'  •"•^  "*  ^"^^'^"^  ^'  ^  --boS 

«i8e.  it  could  be  a  revelation  to  a  third  Derson     Vn„  J 

iTuZ^  I'j  r "« ""«•  ""i-irrsopi^ict 

as    t  Is  old.      Whether  old  or  not.  it  does  not  affect  ito 
ttdiffl/TK    ^» '™t'"»  o'-i    Your  efforts  to  get  ovlr 

^  oSv  mT*  V  ^°"'''''^''  '^°  "<"  ""-t  the  case   nd 
are  only  mere  subterfuge.    If  God  epoke  to  Moses  in  an 

audible  voice,  or  if  he  .bowed  hi.  face  to  him.  or  even  h« 


m  TSB  HUMPHBET-BENNBTT  WtOUflMOll. 

htkSk  pMts,  it  m%y  have  been  very  8ati8factory  to  Moiei* 
but  tbe  Btory  that  it  was  so  is  not  worth  a  cent  to  you  and 
me.    If  God  revealed  his  back  parts  to  Moses  and  Moses 
told  of  it,  does  that  constitute  a  revelation  to  those  he  told 
It  to  or  to  you  and  me  T    Moses  may  have  known  how  those 
back  parts  looked,  but  can  you  or  I  have  the  slightest  idea 
what  Moses  really  saw?   Quibble  as  you  will,  Bro.  Hum- 
phrey, a  revelation  to  Moaes  was  a  revelation  to  nobody 
€lse  in  the  world,  and  everybody  has  the  right  to  believe 
Moses  or  to  di^elieve  him.  according  to  the  nature  of  th« 
story  he  tells  and  the  character  for  veracity  which  he  main- 
tained.  As  there  is  not  a  scintilla  of  proof  that  Moses  wrote 
a  word  of  all  that  is  attributed  to  him,  every  individual  hai 
the  right  to  form  his  own  conclusion  whether  Moses  wai 
the  writer  or  not    This  is  unfortunately  another  great  de- 
feet  in  the  Bible,  the  names  of  Oie  writers  even,  are  not 
given  except  In  a  very  few  instances,  and  the  reader  only 
bas  the  guess-work  of  persons  who  knew  nothing  about 
who  the  writers  were  to  guide  him.    A  miserable  founda- 
tlon.  truly,  upon  which  to  estebliah  th«  divinity  of  the 
compilation. 

While  you  take  very  little  notice  of  the  points  to  which  I 
called  your  attention  and  carefully  avoid  them,  you  array 
numerically  many  imaginary  objections,  and  it  is  amusing 
to  peruse  your  efforts  to  set  them  aside.    Your  renewed 
attempt  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  a  scientific  compilation, 
or  that  the  Bibte  and  science  are  in  harmony,  is  simply 
laughable.    Why.  those  old  writers  knew  but  little  moT« 
About  science  than  the  Esquimaux  or  the  Hottentots  do.    It 
might  as  truthfully  be  said  that  tbe  gibberish  of  these  about 
their  gods  and  their  devils  is  in  harmony  with  science  as 
that  the  tales  about  the  exploits  of  the  Jewish  God  are.    In 
my  sixtii  reply  I  examined  at  some  length  the  science  of  the 
Bible,  and  it  seems  hardly  necessary  to  repeat  the  argumenU 
therein  used.    To  me  the  assertion  tiiat  Uie  moon  is  made 
0f  green  cheese  is  about  as  scientific  as  the  yarn  about  the 


'i 
t 

I 


TUB  HUMPHRKT-BBKNETT  DI8CU08IOH.  868 

earth,  sun  moon  and  stars  being  gotten  up  in  six  days, 
about  the  earth  producing  plants,  herbs,  grasses,  shrubbery 
and  forests,  with  fruits  and  seeds  of  each  in  perfection,  be- 
fore the  sun  was  brought  into  existence;  about  man  being 
fashioned  out  of  the  earth;  about  woman  being  made  of  a 
rib-bone;  about  water  enough  falling  out  of  the  atmosphere 
to  raise  the  ocean  all  over  the  face  of  the  earth  five  miles  in 
height;  that  all  the  animals  and  insects  of  the  varied  climes 
of  the  earth,  living  on  a  great  variety  of  food,  could  exist 
together  in  a  close  box  for  over  a  year;  that  that  vast  body 
of  water,  equaling  nearly  half  the  bulk  of  the  earth,  could 
find  a  place  to  go  to;  that  seas  and  rivers  divided  and  the 
waters  piled  up  on  either  side  like  a  wall;  that  a  man  was 
able  to  arrest  the  sun  and  moon  in  their  courses  for  nearly 
the  space  of  a  day;  of  another  man  causing  no  rain  or  dew 
to  fall  upon  the  earth  for  over  three  years,  or  that  Ufe  could 
exist  so  long  on  earth  without  it,  and  that  at  the  expiration 
of  that  time  he  produced  copious  rains;  that  men  were  able 
to  reanimate  dead  bodies;  that  men  were  able  to  soar  bodily 
into  the  upper  air,  and  survive  there-all  these  and  many 
other  equally  silly  stories  have  about  as  much  of  the  ele- 
ments of  science  in  them  as  of  truth  and  good  sense.    It  is 
only  a  marvel  to  me  how  a  man  of  intelligence,  like  your- 
self,  can  believe  such  idle,  senseless  talk,  and  can  gain  your 
own  consent  to  attempt  to  prove  tiiem  true  and  that  God 
busied  himself  in  writing  them.    The  only  way  I  can  ac- 
count for  it  is  that  they  belong  to  the  system  that  your 
career  and  success  in  life  depend  upon,  and  that  reason, 
truth,  and  common  sense  must  be  sacrificed  to  hold  up 
those  old  fables  and  cause  the  masses  to  still  accept  them  as 
truth.    But  your  task  is  a  laborious  one.    As  intelligence 
gains  ground,  and  as  the  principles  of  science  are  more  and 
more  understood,  it  wiU  be  more  and  more  difficult  for  you 
to  make  sensible  people  accept  and  swallow  such  childish 
nursery  tales. 

In  your  every  argument  you  seem  to  me  to  virtually 


TBS  HmCPHRXT-BKHHaTr  Disoussioir. 

•€know1edg«  thmt  the  Bible  is  a  bmnin  production.  Tou 
laeitlj  admit  that  it  cootaint  contradictiona,  and  you  apolo- 
gtim  for  it  by  saying  that  Gibbon  also  contains  apparent 
contradictions.  You  do  not  deny  that  it  contains  coarse- 
ness, indelicacy,  vulgarity,  and  obscenity,  but  you  try  to 
apologixe  for  it  by  saying  that  the  pagan  bibles,  and  even 
Bhakspere,  contain  some  obscenity.  Indeed,  are  those  the 
beat  arguments  you  are  able  to  advance  in  favor  of  the  silly 
old  Jew  bookf  Can  you  do  no  better  for  it  than  to  show 
that  it  ia  not  very  much  worse  than  acme  othar  books  that 
men  have  written?  By  such  kind  of  argumenU  do  you  not 
practically  acknowledge  all  that  I  have  claimed— that  it  ia 
a  human  production,  and  no  more  worthy  the  respect  and 
veneration  of  mankind  than  any  other  book  of  e^ual  antiq- 
uity f  These  arguments  that  the  Bible  compares  with  toler- 
ftUe  credit  with  other  works  proves  to  me  that  you  really  do 
not  bdieve  in  iu  divinity,  or  that  it  deserves  more  consid- 
eration than  other  books  produced  in  various  parU  of  the 
world.  Why  should  it  f  It  do«i  not  treat  upon  any  more 
elevated  aubjeota ;  it  teaches  no  better  morals  i  It  gives  no 
better  nor  truer  history;  it  contains  no  more  beautiful  poe- 
try; it  shows  no  more  sympathy  with  the  world  of  man- 
kind; it  imparts  no  more  information;  it  tells  no  more 
about  this  world;  it  attempts  to  impart  no  more  informa- 
tion about  the  future  world,  than  hundreds  of  books  that 
were  written  by  people  of  very  ordinary  capacity. 

Your  effort  to  set  aside  the  objection  against  the  Bible 
that  it  ia  susceptible  of  a  gwat  variety  of  constructions  and 
interpretations  strikes  me  as  being,  like  the  rest  of  your 
arguments  upon  the  same  subjects,  quite  insufficient.  A 
reasonable  person  must  certainly  admit  that  if  the  Qtod  of 
heaven  and  earth,  the  source  of  all  knowledge,  wisdom, 
power  and  love,  should  make  up  his  mind  to  write  a  book 
and  dedicate  it  to  the  inhabitanU  of  the  earth,  he  would 
couch  it  in  such  plain,  unmistakable,  unambiguous  Ian* 
gnage  thai  thcsy  could  not  by  any  possibility  misunderstand 


im  HOTPHRKY-BEimKTT  DISCUSSIOK.  m 

^^ron,ZT^^^^^  ^f  ^^  *>^--<^  priests 

to  explain  it^itde^^^^^^^^ 

contradictions  and  ita  ^'*T''  '*'  ^'^^"''^  meaning,  its 

so  that  iS^lmaT  1  Tk '"''^-   ^'  ^""^^  '^^^  -"^^  i' 

ling  and  qua'  IZ  ndlht^^ "'"  *'^  "^^^^"^^^  ''  --«' 
its  diverse  in  e  nret.?^  ^  '7  "'"'"''^  ^'^^  ^"^'^^r  over 
not  be  lireirto  w^^^^^^^^  '"'  commentaries.  He  would 
change  tt  mil        .  *  ^»°««age  subject  to  mutation  and 

that  the  oriirinal  sio^ninn.,-      •        .     ^      "'^  '''*  "'^"e" 
o  uiiBiusi  gignlflcation  is  entirelv  lout     Tf  n^ 

that  book  for  our  use  and  benefit  hlVT'  ?^  ^** 

to  couch  it  in  lanfl-u^  ,fc  T     i  " ""  «'***  '"i"""ce 

When  it  com«,  dowZ  „^     "'  k°  """  ""''«««"<J.  or  that 

;n.'.  1.  especialiy  ^^^J":  ^    ^  ZT"  T 
throughout  eternifr-  «,         ^      ,      oeciaed  to  torment  us 

^^^^.  according  to  the  wM.  .TL^Z'.tZt^Z^ 
ity'S'the'^ibtr'  "  r  ""  "^'"*°'  "«»'-'  '•>«  <l'vin- 

You  have  Peculiar  iodrjd«wU"iIr  "'  '"  T"^' 
ing  up  your  theories.  I  shouldTrrf.r.rHT  """^  ""''''■ 
•Ions  from  yourself     If  h^!  r  k?  k  '^'^""^^  •""■»'»- 

found  in  othTSs       i?!„!f    '"  T'"*  ''"*''^'^'' 

;^^e  tbat  H  was^a'^rrsiirtrtrrtrs 

was  not  sunerinr  fn  ««!»«-        j  *^®»  ^'^^^  ^t 

would  not  r^n  productions,  and  certainly  that  it       ■ 

would  not  require  an  omnipotent  God  to  produce  it    There 

this     In  fZ  V  "  "*  ""■"  "produced  works  as 

6^'«  h        .K     "'  "  ""'  »  »"■«'«  »•»"'»•''»  in  favor  ^ 

B^v  w^rs    r"""  "'  ""*  '"'^'^  »"'«  "»»t  would  no 
-PPly  with  about  equal  force  to  almost  any  other  book 


%l 


8(9  THB  HUMPHRET-BMroBTT  DMCUflMOH. 

You  say  "  there  must  be  something  peculiar  and  unique 
about  the  Bible,  since,  wherever  it  goes,  it  gives  a  new  impe- 
tus  and  direction  to  the  human  mind,  and  deflects  the  very 
currents  of  history."    You  have  no  warrant  for  making 
this  assertion.    The  Bible  has  produced  no  such  results.    It 
has  never  exerted  any  marvelous  iufluence.    There  is  no 
proof  that  the  Jewish  Scriptures  had  an  existence  till  a  few 
centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  and  it  was  not  long  after 
they  were  adopted  as  a  sacred  canon  before  the  Jewish 
nation  was  broken  in  pieces  and  scattered  to  the  four  winds. 
It  was  nearly  three  centuries  after  the  origin  of  Christianity 
before  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  even  known, 
and  it  was  two  or  three  centuries  more  before  the  canon 
was  settled,  and  even  down  to  Luther's  time  it  was  not  fully 
settled.    He  did  not  accept  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
Book  of  Jude.  and  the  Book  of  Revelations.    The  influence 
that  has  been  shed  abroad  in  the  nations  that  have  acknowL 
edged  the  Bible,  has  resulted  from  the  advance  of  civilixa- 
tion  and  science  far,  far  more  than  from  any  teachings  the 
Bible  contains.    If  the  Bible  contains  little  that  is  new  how 
could  it  have  an  effect  much  more  wonderful  than  the  other 
books  that  contain  the  same  or  similar  matter? 

The  Institute?  of  Menu,  the  teachings  of  Zoroaster,  the 
Ztnd  Avesta,  the  Vedas  and  Puranas.  the  Buddhisiic  Sacred 
Writings,  the  morals  and  teachings  of  Confucius,  the  Egyp- 
tian Sacred  Writings,  the  doctrines  of  Pythagoras,  the 
Philosophy  of  Socrates  and  Plato,  the  inculcations  of  Epi- 
curus. Zeno.  and  Aristotle,  as  well  as  much  other  of  the 
wise  and  sage  instructions  of  ancient  times,  have  wielded 
ten  limes  the  influence  in  the  world  that  the  Jewish  scrip- 
tures have  done,  and  you  cannot  truthfully  deny  it.    After 
thousands  of  years  the  Bible  is  accepted  by  hardly  one- 
tenth  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  and  that  tenth  part 
has  been  doing  more  fighting,  killing  and  persecuting  than 
all  the  rest  of  the  world.    Had  you  said  that  the  Bibie  had 
resisted  civiUiation,  that  it  had  been  a  source  of  contentiop 


■w-f 


I 


^1 


TM  HDHFHBKT-BmanBri  nnouwioir.  uif 

««J  Woodshed,  and  that  it  had.  In  fact,  been  a  curae  to  the 
world,  you  ..ould  hare  come  much  nearer  the  trutr 

You  are  wrong  in  claiming  that  the  Jewish  Bible  po.. 
^sses  superiority  over  the  sacred  books  of  other  nationt 
Had  I  the  space  to  spare,  I  could  malte  copious  selectioni^ 
from  the  Institutes  of  Menu,  the  Vedas.  theTurln"  "f  th. 

P™H     ,  t""'  "■"  ^'"^''''""''  ««"«d  Scriptures,  tha 

.S^eTclTne   of'""'  ""  "°"'  '"'*'"''"°-''  "^  ^onfu  ius! 
the  teachings  of  numerous  Grecian  sages  and  philosophers 

Ltnd^  II  Mohammed,  and  much  else  that  was  written 
Uiousands  of  years  ago.  which  in  point  of  morality  snirit- 

toat  goes  to  make  up  a  high  order  of  literature,  are  fully 
equal  .f  not  superior,  to  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  which  «e 
to  rnany  places  so  crude  and  objectionable.  Some  of  the 
.^perrr  ba'°  ''*  ^■"•'"-'y  «-.  but  by  no  mean: 

whi«h  w  .  r""  P"«'"««<"«  of  other  nationalitie. 
Which  were  wholly  the  work  of  human  beings. 

oZZr-  '"T^*  '°°' '°  ^^PPosing  that  there  is  no  more 
ob^enuy  .n  the  Jewish  Bible  than  in  the  bible,  of  oth" 
nafons.    A  much  larger  percentage  of  low,  vulgar  allu- 

foZ  T't  ""*'"'  •"  '"  "  "^  <»''««''««»»  extends,  is 
found  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  than  in  the  sacred  writing. 

VK,  !k  "l"  °'"*'°-  ^^  ""«  translations  of  no  other 
bible  that  I  have  looked  over  have  1  found  such  fiithy  sS 
as  the  incest  committed  by  the  drunken  Lot  and  his  daugh- 
ters  the  low.  unnatural  crimes  of  the  Sodomites,  the  details 

stLv  T«  r°r'"°'"'  """^  "^  "'•"•  »•"!  concubines,  the 
story  of  Schechem  and  Dinah,  the  amours  of  Reuben  and 
his  fathers  concubine,  the  whoring  of  Judah  and  Tamar 
tne  licentiousness  of  Mrs.  Poliphar.  the  instructions  aboui 

ZilT'Tn  k!  '"^'"'^  "'  y°""«  Sirh.  the  adultery  of 
Zimri  and  Cozbi,  the  rules  about  who  shall  be  admitted  into 
the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  the  story  of  the  sodomy  of 
the  Benjsmite..  the  account  of  the  Benjamite.   ravishing 


t 

i  < 
< 


MS  TU  HUllPHB*T-»Eini«rt  ©BOiwnoH. 

oyer  four  hundred  young  femries.  the  lustful  itory  of  David 
wd  Bathsheba,  the  rape  of  Amnon  upon  hi.  .later  Tamar. 
the  story  of  Absalom  holding  connection  with  his  father  s 
concubine  on  the  housetop  In  the  sight  of  all  the  people, 
the  story  of  Solomon  and  hi.  thousand  wives  and  concu- 
bines,  the  amorous  Song  of  Solomon,  the  threat  about 
Bpreading  dung  over  the  face  and  causing  urine  to  be  used 
M  drink,  and  the  mixing  of  cowdung  and  human  excre- 
ment with  bread,  various  storie.  of  fornications,  whore- 
doms, and  fllthlness.  and  more  and  more  ad  nauseam.    In 
fact,  there  is  not  a  book  printed  In  the  English  language, 
except,  perhaps,  a  few.  the  sale  of  which  U  a  crime  punish- 
•bl.  with  impriwment,  that  contain,  w  -""f  «°«^°^'?; 
indecency,  and  obscenity,  a.  thl.  old  JewUh  Bible.    It  U 
really  a  blot  upon  the  civUHaUon  of  our  time,  that  such  an 
objectionable  publication  .hould  be  offered  fo'"^".  »°* 
more  especially,  that  the  children  of  the  country  should  be 
compelled  to  use  It  as  a  reading-book  in  schools.    It  help, 
the  ««e  very  little  to  say  that  there  «e  other  books  con- 
toinlng  something  of  a  similar  character.    If  God  must  be 
M  bad  ss,  or  worse  than  other  obscene  writers.  I  wish  to 
CMt  my  vote  against  hU  writings  being  recognized  as 
Mthoritlve,  or  even  as  worthy  to  be  placed  before  the  ru- 
ing generation  of  our  land. 

Tou  have  the  courtesy  and  mUdrea  to  «y  "  Some  fool 
IkM  collected  and  collocated  a  lot  of  paswge.  and  (sailed 
them  •  Self-contradiction,  of  the  Bible.'"    Thl.  I.  harsh 
language  to  apply  to  a  gentleman  who  has  correctly  quoted 
certain  passages  of  Scripture  and  arranged  them  side  by 
•ide  without  a  word  of  comment,  giving  the  reader  the 
choice  to  draw  hU  own  inferences  a.  to  whether  they  are 
contradictory  or  not.    U  a  man  who  faithfully  quotes  pa.- 
Mge.  from  that  book  ctawWe.  and  granges  them  without 
putting  In  any  of  hU  own  comment.,  Is  a  /«rf,  what  a  con- 
wimmate  fool  that  man  must  be  who  .wallow,  e^ery  *ord 
the  book  contains  and  nrear.  H  U  the  word  of  God,  wd 


TBB  Hmrassr-SKraxn  MKnsnoir. 

was  written  out  by  hi,  divine  hand,  and  that  all  the  absurd. 
Impossible  stories  it  contains  are  as  true  «i  the  eternal  hiU. 
•re  Ann  I  This  last  fool  i.  much  the  most  foolish,  and  by 
far  the  most  hopeless  in  his  folly.  According  to  your  argu- 
ment,  any  man  who  quotes  Bible  language  as  showing  its 
character  and  meaning  is  ^/ool.  and  come  to  think  of  it  I 
don  t  know  but  there  is  a  shade  of  truth  in  your  assertion, 
ferhaps  few  things  more  fooli*  are  done  than  to  quote 
passages  and  texts  from  the  old  Jewish  book  with  the  least 

Btemal  Ruler  of  the  Universe. 

,i.^°Rw  "^^  r  ■"'"  °'  "  C°"t~«licti<»«'."  sre  the«  none  In 
the  Bible  r  Let  us  take  up  a  few  that  that  "fool"  hw, 
collected  and  coUocated."  that  our  readers  may  Judge 
Whether  he  i.  whoUy.fool,  and  whether  these  contradic- 
tions  are  real. 

In  Gen.  1.  81,  It  wys:  "And  God  saw  everything  he  had 
made  and  behold  it  was  very  good."  la  Gen.  vi,  6,  it  says  : 

And  It  repented  the  Lord  that  he  had  made  man  In  the 
earth,  and  It  grieved  him  at  his  heart."  Is  there  any  con- 
tradiction there  »  Was  God  In  precisely  the  wme  m<4d  o. 
both  occasions  T 

In  a  Chrou.  vii,  12,  w.  it  gays  the  Lord  came  unto  Solo- 
mon by  Bight,  after  the  latter  had  built  the  temple.  «,d 
said :  For  now  have  I  chosen  and  sancUoned  this  house, 
that  my  name  may  be  there  forever;  and  mine  eyes  and 
my  heart  shall  be  there  perpetually."    In  Act.  vu  48  it 

!!L''  ".^7"^  *""  "•""  ='«•'  """*"«*  '^  '»  t«Vle. 

made  with  hands."  Is  there  any  contradiction  in  these  p..- 

In  Ex.  xrxiii,  23,  it  tell,  how  God  showed  his  back  part, 
to  Moses.  In  the  eleventh  verse  of  the  same  chapter  It 
dewribes  how  God  and  Moses  talked  together  "  face  to  face 
a«  a  man  speaking  unto  his  friend."  la  Gen.  xxiii  80 
Jacob  ssys  :  "I  have  seen  God  face  to  f«!e,  and  my  life  U 
preserved."    la  fixodu.  xxiv. ».  10.  II.  U  describe,  how 


gni  IBM  WSMFBBMT-'WEMnwn  WWUiflWR 

Hoses,  Aaron.  Ktdab  and  Abilm  and  serenty  of  tho  dd^nr 
of  Itnusl  went  up  to  the  Mount  and  saw  the  God  of  Israel. 
.  .  .  CNi  the  other  hand,  in  John  1,  16,  it  says :  "Ka 
Lan  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  In  John  ▼,  87,  it  says: 
*'  Ye  hath  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his 
shape."  In  Exodus  xxxiii,  20;  it  says;  '^Thou  canst  not? 
see  my  laee,  for  there  shall  no  man  see  me  and  lire."  and  itt 
1  Tim.  vi.  lei  it  says  Expressly,  in  speaking  of  God, 
•»  Whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see."  Is  there  the 
slightest  shade  of  contradiction  fai  these  passages  t  and  i» 
it  only  fools  who  can  see  it  t 

U  Deut  Kxii,  4  it  says  that  God  Is  a  God  of  truth  and 
without  "  iniquity.  Just  and  right  is  he."  In  James  i.  ^  it 
■ays,  '•  God  cannot  be  tempted  with  cTiU  neither  tempteth 
he  My  man."  But  in  Isaiah  xIt,  7,  it  says,  "  I  make  peace 
md  create  evil.  I,  the  Lord  do  all  these  things."  In  Amos 
m,  ^  it  says.  "  Shall  there  be  evU  in  a  city  and  the  Lord- 
hath  not  done  it  ?"  and  in  E«ek.  ».  2!^  it  says.  "  Therefore, 
I  gave  them  also  statutes  that  were  not  good,  and  judg- 
ments whereby  they  should  not  live."  Is  there  any  wani 
of  harmony  between  these  passages  T    Do  they  read  pre- 

dsely  alike  ? 

In  Mat.  vii.  Si  It  says,  •*  Every  one  that  asketh,  receiveth., 

nnd  he  that  seeketh  flndeth."    In  Prov.  viii.  IT.  it  says.^ 

*•  Those  that  seek  me  early  shall  find  me."    In  Prov.  i,  28;r 

it  says,  "  Then  shall  they  call  upon  me,  but  I  will  not 

answer;  they  shall  seek  me  early  but  shall  not  find  me." 

In  Isaiah  i.  15.  it  says,  "  When  ye  spread  forth  your  handa 

1  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you;  yea,  when  ye  shall  make 

many  prayers,  I  will  not  hear."    In  Psalms  xviii.  41.  it  says, 

•»They  cried,  but  there  was  none  to  save  them;  even  unto 

the  Lord,  but  he  answered  them  not."    Is  there  not  a  woup 

derf  ul  unison  of  sentiment  and  promise  in  these  passages  7 

Could  anybody  but  a  fool  see  any  disagreement  in  them  ? 

In  Rom.  XV.  8S.  and  1  Cor.  xiv.  88.  it  says  God  is  a  God  of 
peace,  and  that  he  ia  EOt  the  author  of  confusion  but  peace. 


MB  HtniFHBET-BBlWBTT  DI8CU8SIOH.  J7i 

But  in  Ex.  XV.  8  Is.  II.  15;  Psalms  cxliv,  1,  it  says.  -The 
Lord  is  a  man  of  war.  He  is  called  the  Lord  of  Hosts  * 
and  that  he  "teacheth  my  hands  to  war  and  my  L/e  1 

take'  elt  T'  '''"  ''''''  ''  ^'^  ^^^^^  ^«  ^«  -'^^  ^o 
armies  to  a  bloody  conflict.  Is  it  not  curious  to  see  how 
completely  these  passages  of  the  Word  of  God  run  togetbeT 
in  perfect  accord  f  '"semer 

In  James  y,  H,  Lam.  Hi,  33 ;  1  Chron    xvi    84   T^i, 

xvlU.  82  P3^m»  ex...  9;  1  John  W.  16.  and  nnmerl  S 
P««ages.  u  ft  said  that  God  is  lore,  that  his  mercy  eadae.h 
Wer.  that  he  doth  not  wiilin^Iy  afflict  and  gr  el  The 

S,n^    TV""'  '•  '"*''  °°  Ple.™re  in  the  death  o 
h.m  that  dieth,  that  he  is  good  to  all.  and  that  hU  tender 

merc.es  are  o.er  ail  his  works.  .„d  mnch  more  in  LTame 
line;  wh.Ie  m  Jer.  xiii,  14,  Deut.  yii.  W;  i  Sam  xy  2  8 
1  Sam.  ,i  19.  Deut.  i..  34.  Josh.  x.  11.  L,  m^y Ml; 
passages,  it  is  said  that  God  will  not  pity  uor  ,p.  1' 
ha.e  mercy  but  wil,  destroy  his  people,  that  he  s ToX 
m^LTT  !•!«''"'«»""'«»  'it'^oot  P»y.  that  he  com. 

that  God  IS  a  consuming  fire,  and  that  he  cast  down  stones 

•nt  of  hearen  and  killed  lots  of  hi.  own  oirspring.  Canno! 
•  man  who  is  not  a  fool  see  .  beautiful  agre^men  in  the« 
diverse  passages  ?  '"**' 

In  Psalms  ciii,  8.  and  xxx.  6.  doe.  it  not  say  that  God  is 

Num    xxi'"  T.""^  "'"""*'"  "»'  '  '»°»»""  -^»«  i^ 

Ex  ,T.  24.  It  State,  how  God's  anger  was  fearfully  ki-djed- 
that  he  commanded  that  the  heads  of  tlie  people  who  bad 
been  beheaded  be  taken  and  hung  up  i„'he  sun  that  the 
flerce  anger  of  the  Lord  might  be  turned  away,  that  the  fire 
of  hw  fierce  anger  should  burn  forever,  that  he  was  anery 
«w«7  day,  that  he  Mught  on  m«,rooc«loii..to  kill  people 


fll  THS  HUMFinaT-BMHHMT  DDOVIIIOV. 

and  mucb  more  of  the  same  character.    Is  here  not  %  mort 
lovely  and  heavenly  agreement  ? 

In  Ex.  x«x,  36 ;  Lev.  xxlii.  27  ;  Ex.  xxix,  18  ;  Lev.  i,  9, 
God  commands  burnt  offerings  and  delights  in  them,  says 
they  are  a  sweet  savor  unto  him,  and  all  that,  while  m 
Jer.  vii,  22  ;  Jer.  vi.  20  ;  Ps.  i,  13.  14  ;  Is.  i,  13,  11, 12,  he 
says  he  did  not  command  burnt  offerings,  that  they  were 
not  acceptable  nor  sweet  to  him,  and  that  he  was  full  of 
burnt  offerings  of  rams  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts  ;  that  he 
delighted  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of 
he-goats  and  he  even  coolly  asked  the  people  who  had 
required  sacrifices  at  theh^  hands.  Is  not  such  harmony 
perfectly  delightful  to  the  sainted  clergy  who  despise  the 

TOOOT  fools  f  J    #     u   ^ 

In  Deut.  xii,  80.  31,  God  discountenanced  and  forbade 
human  sacrifices,  while  in  Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29  ;  2  Sam.  xxi, 
a  9  14  •  Gen.  xxii.  2,  and  Judges  xi,  80-39,  is  not  the  prac- 
tice'approved  and  commanded  ?    More  harmony  and  con- 

sistencv  1 

In  James  1. 13,  tt  wyi  God  "  tempts  no  mtn,"  wWle  in 
Gen.  xxii,  1 :  1  Sam.  xxir.  1 ;  Job  ii.  S  ;  Jer.  xx.  7,  and 
many  other  passages,  it  says  God  tempted  Abraham,  that 
he  tempted  David,  that  he  deceived  Jeremiah  and  was  him- 
self tempted  of  Satan.    Of  course  thU  is  perfect  harmony 

to  aU  but  fools. 

In  Num.  xxiii,  19.  it  says  God  cannot  he,  while  in  Jer. 
It  10;  xiT.  18;  3  Thes.  ii.  11;  1  Kings  xxii.  88;  Judges  ix.  83 ; 
Eielc  XiT,  9.  and  elsewhere,  it  declares  that  God  deceived 
the  people,  that  he  sent  strong  delusions  that  his  people 
should  belieye  a  lie,  that  he  put  a  lying  spirit  into  the 
mouths  of  his  prophets,  that  be  sent  an  eril  spirit,  that  he 
deceiTed  the  prophets,  etc.  etc  How  blessed  it  is  to  find 
perfect  harmony  in  the  "  Holy  Scriptures  "I 

It  U  easy  to  show,  by  quoting  confUcting  psssages.  that 
God  not  only  commanded  robbery  but  forbade  tt;  that  Tie 
MDcUosed.  approved  and  commanded  lying,  and  also  pio* 


THB  HVMFBSKT-BBKHaTT  DnCDtSION.  87S 

Wbited  It ;  that  he  commanded  men  to  kill  and  not  to  kill  • 
that  he  said  Wood-shedders  should  die  and  that  blood-shed-' 

r^lLr"!,  rl  ^''"  """  *"*  ""''"'«  "'  *•»•««»  «<»  com. 
manded  and  forbidden;  that  he  commanded  and  prohibited 

slavery;  that  improvidence  was  enjoined  and  condemned- 

that  anger  was  approved  and  that  anger  was  disapproved;' 

that  good  works  should  be  seen  of  men  and  that  good 

forhS-f  °"."*  °"' "'  •""' "'  """^  """  i'^^^S  others  was 
forbidden  In  one  place  and  commanded  in  another;  that 

non-resistance  was  both  enjoined  and  disapproved ;  that 
public  prayer  was  both  sanctioned  and  condemned;  thatim- 
portumty  in  prayer  is  commanded  in  one  part  and  forbid- 
ded  m  another;  that  the  wearing  of  long  hair  by  men  is 
sanctioned  in  one  place  and  condemned  in  another;  that  cir- 
cumcision  Is  commanded  in  one  place  and  condemned  in 
another  ;  that  the  Sabbath  is  instituted  in  one  place  and 
repudiated  in  another;  that  baptism  is  commanded  in  one 
instance  and  not  commanded  in  others;  that  every  kind  of 
animals  is  allowed  for  food  in  one  place  and  many  kind, 
forbidden  In  others;  that  the  taking  of  oaths  is  sanctioned 
in  one  p  ace  and  forbidden  in  others;  that  marriages  are 
approved  in  some  instances  and  condemned  in  others;  that 
adultery  is  both  sanctioned  and  condemned;  that  hatred  of 
Kindred  is  both  enjoined  and  condemned ;  that  woman's 
rights  are  both  denied  and  affirmed}    that  obedience  to 
masters  is  both  commanded  and  countermanded;  that  there 
is  an  unpardonable  and  that  there  la  no  unpardonable  sin 
and  much  more  in  keeping.    Now  you  wUl  doubtless  still 
Insist  that  there  is  not  the  least  contradicUon  in  all  these 
mstances,  except  in  the  minds  of  fools,  and  I  insist  that  he 
must  be  a  fool  who  cannot  resdly  perceive  them. 

Among  the  historical  statements  of  the  Bible  there  is  fre- 
quently as  much  agreement  as  in  the  doctrinal  which  we    - 
have  been  glancing  it.    We  wUl  take  a  peep  at  a  few  of  the 
large  number:    In  Gen.  i.  35,  27  it  says  that  man  was  cre- 
ated after  the  other  animals;  whUe  in  tl;e  next  chapter. 


I 


874  TH«  WJMPmBST-BlHHKTT  VUCXnUOV. 

▼erset  18.  W.  U  wys  he  was  creiled  before  the  animals. 
Could  both  ways  be  stated  without  a  contradiction  t 

According  to  Gen.  vlii.  22,  seed-time  and  harvest  were  to 
never  cease,  but  according  to  Gen.  xU,  54-56  and  Gen.  xIt, 
6.  seed-time  and  harvest  did  cease  for  seven  years.  This 
would  seem  to  be  a  contradiction,  but  only  to  fools. 

In  Ex.  iv,  21,  and  Ex.  ix.  12.  it  says  God  hardened  Pha- 
raoh's  heart;  but  Ex.  viii,  15.  says  Pharaoh  hardened  it 
biuLself.  Of  course  both  are  correct;  no  contradiction  here. 
In  2  Sam.  xxiv,  1,  it  says  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was 
kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  moved  David  against  them  to 
say.  Go  number  Israel  and  Judah.  In  1  Chron.  xxi,  1.  in 
narrating  the  same  event,  it  says.  "And  Satan  stood  up 
against  Israal  and  provoked  David  to  number  Israel."  Can 
you  see  any  signs  of  a  contradiction  hese  ?  Are  both  state- 
ments true?   Are,  then.  Satan  and  God  the  same  individual? 

In  Mat.  xi,  14,  it  says  that  John  the  BapUst  was  the  Elias 
which  was  to  come;  but  in  John  i,  21,  it  says  direcUy  to  the 
contrary.    A  divine  agreement. 

According  to  Mat.  i.  16.  the  father  of  Joseph.  Mary's  bus- 
band,  was  Jacob;  whUe  in  Luke  Ui,  83,  it  says  it  was  HeU. 
It  only  needs  a  little  faith  and  godliness  to  see  the  perfect 
agreement  iu  these  two  statements. 

In  Matt.  ii.  14-23,  it  says  the  infant  Jesus  was  taken  into 
Egypt,  while  in  Luke  ii,  22,  39.  it  states  that  he  was  not 
taken  into  Egypt.    More  agreement. 

According  to  Mark  i.  12.  13,  Jesus  was  tempted  in  the 
wilderness  forty  days  and  nights,  but  according  to  John  ii, 
1,  a.  nothing  of  the  kind  took  place.    How  harmonious  I 

It  must  be  divine  I 

According  to  Matt.  v.  1.  2.  Jesus  preached  his  first  ser- 
mon on  a  mount,  but  according  to  Luke  v,  17,  20.  it  was  on 
a  plain.    It  must  have  been  both  ways. 

By  Mark  i,  14.  John  was  in  prison  when  Jesus  went  to 
Galilee,  while  by  John  i,  43,  and  John  iii.  22-24.  John  was 
not  In  prison  at  that  time.    Baautiful  consistency  I 


TTHl  HUMPHKET-BENNErr  DISOIWSlWf.  87| 

According  to  Matt,  xx,  SO,  two  blind  men  besought  Jesus 
to  have  mercy  on  them,  and  called  him  the  eon  of  David, 
while  by  Luke  xviii,  -35,  38,  it  was  but  one  man.  Of  course 
iboth  statements  are  true. 

In  Matt  viii,  28,  it  says  two  men  coming  out -of  the  tomb 
«iet  Jesus,  while  Mark  v,  2,  says  it  was  but  one  man.  Do 
4)n«  and  two  in  Christian  theology  mean  the  same  as  one 
and  three  do  t 

AccordiDg  to  Mark  xv.  25,  Jesus  was  crucified  at  tiie  third 
^hour,  but  John  xix.  14,  15,  says  it  was  the  sixth  hour. 
Probably  three  hours  is  not  much  of  a  mistake  for  Deity  to 
4nake. 

According  to  Mafl.  the  two  thieves  revfled  Jesus,  while 
according  to  Luke  it  was  but  one.  The  exactness  of  the 
divine  author  is  reassuring  indeed. 

Matthew  (xxvil.  84)  says  vinegar  with  gall  was  given 
Jesus  to  drink  on  the  cross;  but  Mark  (xv,  ^)  says  it  was 
wine  mingled  wUh  myrrh.    Both  true  of  course.    God  un- 
•doubtedly  knew  what  he  was  Ulking  about. 

John  (xiil,  27)  says  Satan  entered  into  Judas  whUe  at 
«upper,  but  Luke  (xxii,  8-7)  says  it  was  before  supper. 
Which  of  them  saw  the  entrance  made  f 

Matthew  says  (xxvii,  5)  that  Judas  returned  the  thirty 
pieces  of  sUver.  but  m  Acts  i,  18,  says  he  did  not  return  the 
money  but  invested  it  in  real  estate.  Of  course  both  were 
•correct, 

Matthew  says  Judas  hanged  himself,  while  in  Acta  it 
^ayshefell  headlong  and  *urst  asunder  and  all  his  bowels 
pushed  out.    In  an  ordinary  newspaper  account  of  a  similar 
catastrophe  a  reporter  would  not  be  allowed  to  make  such 
a  blunder;   but  God,  in  ^tting   up  statements,  is  not 
governed  by  any  ordinary  rules  of  accuracgr.  The  etatemeut 
in  Acts  is  not  credible.    Judas  might  have  fallen  headlong, 
but  he  would  hardly  burst  asunder  and  all  his  bowels  gush 
tmt.    When  men  fall  from  house-tops  and  other  heighte 
And  suddenly  kill  themselves,  th^  do  not  burst  asunder' 


979 


VWM  WUMrHBBT-BKHyBTT  JUWOOWKW. 


nor  do  tbelr  bowels  nil  gush  otil.  Still,  God  ought  to  know 
bow  to  report  the  case,  and  both  ways  must  be  true.  Per- 
haps Judas  hung  bimself  first,  and  the  rope  breaking  sud- 
denly, he  fell  very  heaTily  and  burst  asunder  and  all  his 
bowels  gushed  out    It  is  probable  he  dSd  not  survive  the 

injury. 

John  (XX,  1)  says  but  one  woman  came  to  the  sepulchre; 
but  Matthew  (xxviii,  1)  says  there  were  two;  but  Matthew 
was  liable  to  stretch  things  a  little,  and  perhaps  his  state- 
ment should  be  discounted  about  one  Mary.  But  no,  that 
win  not  do.  It  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  it  must  be 
correct.  The  heavenly  harmonics  ihust  not  be  disturbed. 
Mark  (xvi,  1)  says  there  were  three  of  the  women,  while 
Luke  has  it  that  there  were  five  or  six.  This  beats  the 
celebrated  *'crow"  story;  but  the  correctness  of  the  four 
different  statements  can  be  doubted  only  by  fools;  a  few 
women  more  or  less  make  but  little  difference. 

Matthew  says  the  women  came  at  sunrise,  but  John  says 
it  was  before  sunrise  and  while  it  was  yet  dark.  As 
neither  of  them  were  there,  perhaps  they  should  not  expect 
to  agree  to  within  hour  or  two. 

Luke  says  two  angels  were  seen  at  the  sepulchre,  but 
Matthew  shrinks  the  number  and  says  it  was  but  one  an- 
gel. John  and  Mark  say  the  one  angel,  and  the  two  angels 
were  seen  within  the  sepulchre,  but  Matthew  insists  that  it 
was  without  the  sepulchre,  for  he  rolled  back  the  stone  and 
sat  upon  it.  These  little  discrepancies  of  course  are  not 
essential    They  must  all  be  accepted  as  the  exact  truth. 

Matthew  and  Luke  say  the  women  went  and  told  the  dis- 
ciples about  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  Mark  says  they 
said  not  a  word  about  it  to  anybody.  Of  course  you  c«n 
see  nothing  but  perfect  agreement  here. 

Mark  and  John  say  Jesus  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magda* 
lene  only.  Matthew  says  he  appeared  to  the  two  Marys, 
while  Luke  says  he  appeared  to  neither  of  the  Marys.  A 
(odly  man  can  see  that  all  of  these  statenients  must  be  trusw 


THE  BUliPHBBT  BBNKXTT  DISCUSSIOIT.  S77 

According  to  Mat.  xii,  40,  Jesus  was  to  be  three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  but,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  the  other  evangelists,  he  was  in  the  sep- 
ulchre  but  two  nights  and  one  day.  The  agreement  here  is 
again  perfect.  Possibly  Jesus  found  the  heart  of  the  earth 
so  intensely  hot  that  one  hour  counted  for  two,  and  thirty- 
six  were  the  same  as  seventy-two.  It  must  all  be  correct, 
by  some  process  of  reasoning. 

In  Acts  i,  8.  6,  and  ii.  1,4,  it  says  the  Holy  Ghost  was  be- 
stowed at  Pentecost,  while  John  says  it  was  bestowed 
before  Pentecost  (xx,  22).  As  the  Holy  Ghost  is  rather  an 
uncertain  quantity,  perhaps  we  ought  not  to  expect  that  aU 
accounts  of  him  will  perfectly  agree. 

According  to  Matthew,  the  disciples  were  commanded, 
immediately  after  the  resurrection,  to  go  into  Galilee,  while 
according  to  Luke,  they  were  at  the  same  time  commanded 
to  tarry  at  Jerusalem.  But  it  is  only  fools  that  will  mind 
these  apparent  contradictions. 

According  to  Luke  and  John,  Jesus  first  appeared  to  the 
eleven  in  a  room  in  Jerusalem,  while,  according  to  Mat- 
thew, it  was  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee.  This  discrepancy 
is  only  apparent;  the  real  harmony  is  deific.  When  a  slight 
allowance  is  made  for  Matthew,  who  sometimes  told  the 
truth  by  accident,  the  agreement  is  truly  wonderful. 

According  to  Acts  i.  0, 12,  Jesus  ascended  from  3Iount 
Olivet    According  to  Luke  (xxiv,  50,  51)  he  ascended  from 
Bethany.    According  to  Mark  (xvi,  14,  19)  he  went  up  in 
the  presence  of  his  disciples  as  they  sat  at  meat  in  a  room  ; 
while  Matthew  does  not  say  any  thing  about  his  going  up 
at  all.    It  is  almost  a  wonder  he  did  not  have  the  ascension 
made  feet  foremost.    Who  can  doubt  that  God  wrote  these 
different  accounts  ?    Probably  if  there  had  been  a  few 
more  "  Evangelists  "  to  write  up  the  wonderful  affair,  not 
only  Jesus  but  all  his  disciples  would  have  "gone  up,**<ind 
never  been  heard  of  more.    Many  evangelists  are  "going 
up.*'  even  at  the  present  day. 


/X'V 


III  Acti  Ix,  7,  we  lewrn  thAt  "PmuVB  attendants  stood 
Bpeechless.  hearing  a  Toice,  but  seeing  no  man.  In  Acts 
xxii,  »,  it  says  they  heard  not  the  voice,  and  in  chap,  xxvi, 
14,  instead  of  saying  they  stood,  it  says  they/«a  to  the  earth. 
Possibly  the  Great  Being  who  instructed  the  writers  forgot 
just  how  it  was. 

It  is  generally  understood  that  Abraham  had  two  sons- 
one  by  his  wife  Sarai.  named  Isaac,  and  one  by  his  hand- 
maid,  or  concubine,  Hagar,  named  Ishmael— but  in  Heb. 
xi,  17,  it  speaks  of  Isaac  as  Abraham*s  ''ordy  begotten  son." 
Perhaps  Ishmael  was  not  begotten.  He  might  have  been  a 
divine  bastard,  like  Christ. 

According  to  Gen.  xxi.  2,  and  Rom.  iv.  19,  Abraham  be- 
got  his  son  Isaac  when  a  hundred  years  old.  by  the  Msint- 
ance  of  God,  but  after  ''getting  the  hang  of  the  business," 
he  was  afterwards  able  to  get  six  more  children  without 
any  particular  help  from  the  Divine  Power,  notwithstand- 
ing his  great  age.     '*  Never  to  old  to  learn." 

By  Gen.  xiii,  14, 15,  and  xvU.  8,  and  many  other  passages 
we  learn  that  God  promised  the  land  of  Canaan  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed  forever,  but  according  to  Acts  vii,  5,  and 
Heb,  xi,  9, 13,  Abraham  never  so  much  as  set  a  foot  on  it, 
and  the'  promise  was  never  fulfilled.  "A  bad  promise  is 
better  broken  than  kept." 

According  to  2  Chron.  xxil,  1,  Ahaziah  was  the  youngest 
son  of  Jehoram,  while  by  2  Chron.  xxi,  16, 17,  we  learn  it 
was  not  so.  Those  who  pay  their  money  (to  the  preachers) 
can  take  their  choice. 

By  2  Kings,  viii,  17,  24, 28,  we  leara  that  Ahaziah  was 
twenty-two  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign,  being  eigh- 
teen  years  younger  than  his  father;  but  by  2  Chron.  xxil. 
1,  2,  we  learn  still  further  that  Ahaziah  was  forty-two  years 
old  when  he  began  to  reign,  two  years  older  than  his 
father.  Probably  according  to  theological  science  a  man 
may  be  a  few  yeari  older  than  hia  lather.    At  »U  events, 


m 

'€'111 


THE  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DISCUSSION.' 

4he  little  difficulties  should  not  be  questioned.    ••  All  thloM 
are  possible  with  God." 

When  David  numbered  the  people,  according  to  8  Sam. 
xxiv.  9,  there  were  800.000  of  Israel  and  600,t)00  of  Judah- 
while  according  to  1  Chron.  xxiv,  10,  there  were  1,100  000 
of  Israel  and  m.O&O  of  Judah-a  differeace  of  only  300,000. 
But  God  did  not  have  the  advantage  of  a  common-school 
education,  hence  these  discrepancies^-apparent  only  to  the 
poor  fools  who  have  not  studied  divine  mathematics  in  a 
theological  seminary.    There  is  nothing  like  divine  exact- 
ness.    We  always  know  what  to  depend  upon  when  w« 
read  a  book  that  God  wrote  with  his  own  finger.    In  point 
of  reliability  and  mystery  it  is  on  a  par  with  boarding-house 
hash. 

According  to  2  Sam.  x,  18,  David,  on  a  certain  occasion, 
slew  700  Syrian  charioteers;  but  according  to  1  Chron.  xixi 
18.  it  was  7,000  Syrian  charioteers.  Probably  the  latter 
arc  David's  own  figures,  but  both  must  be  true.  There  can 
not  be  an  error  in  that  Great  Book. 

By  1  Sam.  xxiv,  24,  we  learn  that  David  paid  fifty  shekels 
of  silver  for  a  certain  threshing-floor;  but  1  Chron.  xxi,  25, 
it  says  he  paid  six  hundred  shekels  of  gold.  This  was  too 
much-don't  believe  David  paid  it.  Divinity  must  have 
been  mistaken.    He  ought  to  be  reasonable,  at  any  rate. 

According  to  1  Sam.  xvii,  4,  60,  we  find  that  it  was  David 
who  slew  Goliah;  but  by  2  Sam.  xxi,  19,  we  further  learn 
that  it  was  Elhanan  who  slew  the  giant.  The  words,  "the 
brother  of,"  are  not  in  the  original,  but  were  supplied  by 
the  translators  lo  avoid  a  contradiction.  They  should  have 
played  that  card  much  oftener.  if  they  meant  to  reconcile 
all  the  discrepancies. 

In  the  speculative  doctrines  there  is  little  better  agree- 
ment between  the  various  parts  of  the  book.  For  instance, 
Jesus  said  his  mission  was  peace  and  he  also  said  it  was  not 
peace;  that  he  was  all-powerful  and  that  he  was  not  al^ 
pow«f  uh  that  he  was  equal  with  God  and  that  he  was  n^ 


THB  HUICPKIUST-BKHIIXTT  DiaOUBStOlT. 

•qual  with  God ;  that  he  did  receive  testimony  from  men 
and  that  he  did  not  receive  testimony  from  men;  that  hb 
witness  was  true  and  that  it  was  not  true;  that  it  was  law- 
ful for  the  Jews  to  put  him  to  death  and  that  it  was  not 
lawful ;  that  children  are  punished  for  the  sins  of  their 
prsents  and  that  they  are  not  so  punished;  that  man  is  jus- 
tified hy  faith  alone  and  that  he  is  not  Justified  by  faith 
alone;  that  it  is  possible  to  fall  from  grace  and  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  fall  from  grace;  that  no  man  is  without  sin,  and 
that  Christians  are  not  sinners;  that  there  is  to  be  a  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  and  that  there  is  to  be  no  ressurrection 
of  the  dead;  that  rewards  and  punishments  are  bestowed  in 
this  world,  and  that  they  are  not  bestowed  in  this  world;  that 
annihilation  is  the  portion  of  all  mankind,  and  that  endless 
misery  is  the  fate  of  a  large  part  of  the  race;  that  the  earth 
is  to  be  destroyed,  and  that  the  earth  is  never  to  be  de- 
stroyed;  that  no  evil  shall  happen  to  the  godly,  and  that 
evil  shall  happen  to  the  godly;  that  worldly  good  and  pros- 
perity is  the  lot  of  the  godly,  and  thst  worldly  misery  and 
destitution  wthe  lot  of  the  godly;  that  worldly  prosperity 
and  blessing  is  a  reward  for  righteousness,  and  that  worldly 
prosperity  is  a  curse  and  a  bar  to  future  rewards;  that  the 
Christian's  yoke  is  easy  and  that  it  is  not  easy;  that  the 
fruit  of  God's  spirit  is  love  and  gentleness,  and  that  the 
fruit  of  God's  spirit  is  vengeance  and  fury;  that  prosperity 
and  longevity  are  enjoyed  by  the  wicked,  and  that  they  are 
denied  to  the  wicked;  that  poverty  is  a  blessing,  and  that 
riches  are  a  blessing— also,  that  neither  poverty  nor  riches 
is  a  blessing  ;  that  wisdom  is  a  source  of  enjoyment,  and 
that  it  is  a  source  of  vexation,  grief  and  sorrow;  that  a  good 
name  is  a  blessing,  and  also  that  a  good  name  is  a  curse; 
that  laughter  is  commanded  and  that  it  is  condemned;  that 
the  rod  of  correction  is  a  remedy  for  foolishness,  and  that 
there  is  no  remedy  for  foolishness;  that  temptation  is  to  b« 
dMlred,  and  that  it  is  im<  to  be  desired ;  that  prophecy  it 
•ore  and  that  it  is  Mi  sure ;  that  inan's  life  was  to  be  ont 


TH«  BUlfPHRBT-BUnnrrT  MSCUillOH.  881 

hundred  and  twenty  years  and  that  it  was  to  be  but  seventy 
years;  that  miracles  are  a  proof  of  divine  mission,  and  that 
they  are  not  a  proof  of  divine  mission  ;  that  Moses  was  a 
,   ^efjmeek  man.  and  that  he  was  a  very  cruel  man;   that 
Elijah  went  up  bodily  through  the  air  into  heaven,  and  that 
Christ  was  the  only  one  who  had  thus  ascended  into  heaven- 
that  all  the  Scriptures  are  inspired,  and  that  some  Scripture 
is  not  inspired  (to  which  opinion  I  decidely  incline);  that 
servants  are  taught  to  obey  their  masters,  and  also  that  they 
are  to  be  the  servants  of  no  man  ;  again,  that  they  should 
be  subject  to  their  masters  with  all  fear-not  the  good  and 
gentle  alone,  but  also  to  the  froward-and  that  they  should 
worship  the  Lord  God,  and  him  only  should  they  serve;  that 
those  who  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost  have  never 
forgiveness,  and  thst  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  aU 
things;  that  Jesus  and  his  father  were  equal,  or  one,  and 
that  the  Father  was  greater  than  he.   It  is  said  that  Jesus 
was  the  Prince  of  Peace,  and  again,  that  he  did  not  come 
to  bring  peace  but  a  sword;  that  God  is  a  jealous  God  vis- 
iting the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  third  and  fourth 
generations,  and  that  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of 
the  father;  that  there  is  not  a  just  man  upon  the  earth  that 
doeth  good  and  sinneth  not,  and  that  he  that  committeth 
sin  is  of  the  Devil. 

And  thus  that  perfect  divine  book,  direct  from  the  man- 
sions  of  bliss,  goes  on  almost  interminably  on  both  sides  of 
almost  every  subject  that  may  be   named.    I  could  cite 
many  more  positive  contradictions,  but  perhaps  I  have 
named  enough  to  satisfy  our  readers  that  the  book  is  full 
of  palpable  incongruities,  if  I  cannot  satisfy  you  of  the 
fact.    They  may  see,  too,  that  the  man  who  arranged  them 
without  a  word  of  comment  was  not  necessarily  a  fool,  and 
that  the  foolishness  consists  in  believing  that  such  a  mass  of 
contradictions  and  absurdities  are  an  emanation  from  the 
great  source  of  truth,  harmony,  and  intelligence.    The 
ntrrel  is  how  so  intelligent  a  man  as  yourself  can  believe 


Il 

i 


TBM  flUHPHIUIY'-BBNllXTT  DI80U8BZON. 

that  tlw  old  book  had  any  higher  origin  than  the  minds  and 
hands  of  men,  and  that  you  can  so  easily  see  the  hand  and 
intellect  of  a  God  in  it.    I  would  repeat,  that  the  absurdity 
of  ascribing  to  a  superhuman  power  a  book,  or  a  collection 
of  books,  that  most  assuredly  are  not  superior  to  human 
production  almost  transcends  comprehension.    If  the  Jew- 
ish Scriptures,  with  all  their  foibles,  contradictions,  absurd- 
ities, and  senselessness,  is  the  best  their  God  can  do  in 
getting  up  a  book,  he  certainly  is  not  a  success  in  that  line, 
and  had  better  give  his  attention  to  killing  people,  conduct- 
ing wars,  etc.,  and  leave  book-making  to  those  who  possess 
a  greater  degree  of  skill  in  that  direction  than  himself. 
Can  you  possibly  believe  that  a  being  who  could  speak  into 
existence  the  earth,  the  sun,  the  solar  system,  and  the  entire 
Universe,  with  its  constellations  of  suns  and  stars  and  its 
vast    congeries    of   constellations,  causing  all   to  move 
together  in  wonderful  beauty  and  harmony;  who  was  also 
able  to  organize  and  perfect  the  equally  wonderful  micro- 
scopic world— the  vast  kingdom  of  minute,  invisible  anima- 
tion—the infinitesimal  leviathans  that  disport  in  a  drop  of 
water,  and  the  herds  of  inconceivably  small  animals  that  feed 
upon  a  single  leaf,  all  the  systems  and  grades  of  life  being 
conducted  with  consummate  skill— could  not  produce  a 
more  perfect  book  than  the  Jewish  Bible  t    If  that  is  the 
best  that  such  a  Deity  can  do  in  book-making,  had  I  his 
private  ear  I  would  say,  **  Confine  yourself  to  world-mak- 
ing, to  devising  the  various  systems  of  vegetable  and  animal 
life,  but  don't  try  again  to  write  a  book.    It  does  you  great 
discredit." 

As  serious  as  the  subject  is,  I  can  hardly  help  being 
amused  at  your  efforts  in  trying  to  extricate  your  Bible  God 
from  .the  odium  connected  with  the  villainous  slaughter  of 
the  Midianites,  and  I  cannot  understand  how  so  amiable 
and  peaceable  a  man  as  yourself  can  apologize  for  and  jus- 
tify such  a  murderous,  cruel  and  damnable  transaction. 
Can  it  be  possible  that  you  can  think  that  the  adultery  of 


TSB  SUMTHHST-BSHinBTT  DUCU88ION. 

the  Hebrew  Zlmrl  with  the  Midianitlsh  woman  Cozbi,  or 
even  that  a  thousand  such  instances  would  justify  the  plun- 
dering, despoiling,  robbing,  massacring  and  exterminaiing 
an  entire  peaceful  nation,  or  five  nations  rather,  for  they 
had  five  kings?  It  would  seem  that  the  Midianites  were 
eminently  a  peaceful,  agricultural  people.  They  seemed 
not  to  understand  the  arts  of  war,  for  they  appeared  to  fall 
an  easy  prey  to  the  twelve  thousand  red-handed  murderers 
that  Moses  sent  over  to  slaughter  them,  and  they  seemed  so 
incapable  of  self-defence  that  they  killed  few  or  none  of 
the  brigands  that  despoiled  them.  That  the  Midianites 
were  an  agricultural  people  is  evident  from  their  great  herds 
of  sheep,  cattle  and  assea.  They  were  just  such  prey  as 
the  Jews  and  their  blood-thirsty  God  were  partial  to. 

Of  all  the  murderous  details  of  which  history  informs 
us,  there  is  nothing  so  utterly  monstrous  and  cruel  as  the 
treatment  of  the  Midianites  by  God's  chosen  people.    The 
males  were  all  put  to  the  sword,  in  the  first  place,  and  all 
their  wealth,  their  jewels,  their  wearing  apparel,  their 
676,000  sheep,  72,000  beef  cattle  and  61,000   asses  were 
stolen    They  then  burnt  their  cities,  their  goodly  castles, 
despoiling  their  homes  and  spreading  devastation  over  the 
entire  country.    The  robbers,  it  seems,  possessed  a  moiety 
of  humanity,  and  saved  the  women  and  children  alive,  but 
when  that  man  of  God,  Moses,  learned  this,  he  flew  into  a 
rage,  shrieking  out  in  demoniac  rage,  *'  Have  ye  saved  all 
the  women  alive  ?    Kill  every  male  among  the  little  ones, 
and  kill  every  woman  that  hath  known  man  by  lying  with 
him,  but  all  the  women-children  that  have  not  known  man 
by  lying  with  him,  keep  alive  for  yourselves."    Was  ever 
any  order  from  any  tyrant  or  murderer  so  merciless,  so 
cruel,  so  monstrous  f    And  that  devilish  order  was  carried 
out.    From  fifty  thousand  to  one  hundred  thousand— as 
near  as  can  be  estimated— of  women  and  male  babies  were 
murdered  in  cold  blood  in  the  sight  of  the  young  girls  who 
had  ne^er  laid  with  man,  and  thirty- two  thousand  of  the 


TUB  HUllPBBET-BIllimT  DnOUMIOl^ 

latter  were  turned  oyer  for  th6  indulgence  of  the  base,  lust- 
ful  passions  of  the  men  who  had  murdered  their  fathers, 
their  mothers  and  their  little  brothers.  O,  was  anything 
ever  so  shocking,  so  villainous  T  Did  devils  ever  do  any- 
thing 80  bad  as  this  T  Were  Turks  or  savages  ever  so  lost 
to  every  fine  feeling  of  the  human  heart  ?  And  yet  the 
Rev.  Q.  H.  Humphrey — a  professed  follower  and  teacher 
of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus— stands  up  in  this  day  of  cul- 
ture, civilization  and  refinement  and  attempts  to  justify  this 
most  abominable  and  damnable  business  I  I  am  truly  sorry 
that  he  has  espoused  a  religion  that  makes  it  necessary  for 
him  to  do  a  deed  so  abhorrent  to  every  noble  feeling  and  sym- 
pathy of  his  nature.  Good  grounds  had  Theodore  Parker 
for  saying  to  an  orthodox  clergyman,  "My  friend,  your 
God  is  my  Devil."  If  there  was  nothing  else  vile  and  ab- 
horrent in  that  old  book,  the  thirty-first  chapter  of  Num- 
bers is  alone  sufficient  to  eternally  damn  the  compilation  in 
the  eyes  of  every  kind-hearted,  just  and  sympathizing  man 
in  the  world,  and  to  cause  him  to  contemplate  with  perfect 
abhorrence  a  being  capable  of  ordering  and  approving  such 
a  bloody,  diabolical  piece  of  business.  I  never  will  love 
nor  worship  such  a  monster,  and  it  is  only  a  wonder  to  me 
how  any  good  man  or  woman  possibly  can. 

Among  the  great  objections  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
should  be  accepted  as  the  infallible  word  of  God  is  tho 
monstrous,  unlovable  character  it  gives  to  that  being.  By 
the  chapter  just  referred  to  (Num.  xxxi,)  we  get  a  vivid 
and,  in  fact,  a  lurid  picture  of  him,  and,  as  I  remarked,  it 
constitutes  him  a  fiend  incarnate.  There  are  other  parts  of 
the  Bible  not  much  behind  in  painting  him  as  a  most  gro- 
tesque and  horrible  monster.  Let  me  quote  a  few  passages. 
'*  Smoke  came  out  of  his  nostrils,  and  fire  out  of  his  mouth, 
80  that  coals  were  kindled  by  it"  (3  Sam.  xxii,  9).  '*  He 
had  horns  coming  out  of  his  hands,  and  these  were  the 
hiding  of  his  power  "  (Hab.  11,  4).  '*  Out  of  his  mouth  went 
a  sharp  two-edged  sword  "  (Rev.  i,  16).   **Ottt  of  his  mouth 


TSM  BUlfFHBBT-BBKNBTT  DUOtlBSIOH. 

goeth  a  sharp  sword  "  (xix,  15).    '« The  Lord  shall  roar  from 
on  high.    He  roareth  from  his  habitation.    He  shall  shout 
as  they  that  tread  the  grapes  *'  (Jer.  xxv,  30).     •'  He  awak- 
ened as  one  out  of  sleep,  and  shouleth  like  a  man  drunken 
with  wine  "  (Ps.  Ixxviii,  65).    *'  In  his  anger  he  persecuted 
and  slew  without  pity  "  (Lam.  iii,  45).     -  His  fury  is  poured 
out  like  fire,  and  the  rocks  are  thrown  down  by  him  "  (Nah. 
i,  6).     •*  He  became  angry  and  swore  "  (Ps.  xcv.  11).     ••  He 
burns  with  anger;  his  lips  are  full  of  indignation,  and  his 
tongue  as  a  devouring  fire  "  (Is,  xxx,  27).     *  *  He  is  a  jealous 
God  "  (Ex.  xxxiv,  14).    '« He  stirred  up  jealousy  "  (Is.  xiii. 
18).     ' » He  was  jealous  to  fury  "  (Zach.  viii.  2).     "  He  rides 
upon  horses  "(Hab.  iii,  8).     "He  cried  and  roared  "(Is. 
xlii.  18).     ••  He  laughs  in  scorn  "  (Ps.  ii,  4).     "  The  Lord  is 
a  man  of  war  "  (Ex.  xv,  8).     »•  His  anger  wiU  be  accom- 
plished, and  his  fury  rest  upon  them,  and  then  he  will  be 
comforted  "  (Ezek.  v.  13).     "His  arrows  shall  be  drunken 
with  blood"  (Deut.  xxxii,  42).     "He  is  angry  with  the 
wicked  every  day  "  (Ps.  vii,  11).     "  They  have  moved  me 
to  jealousy;  I  will  provoke  them  to  anger.    .    .    A  fire  is 
kindled  in  mine  anger,  and  shall  bum  unto  the  lowest  hell. 
I  will  heap  mischief  upon  them ;  I  will  spend  my  arrows  upon 
them.    .    .  They  shall  be  burntwith  hunger  and  devoured 
with  burning  heat,  and  with  bitter  destruction.    I  will  also 
send  the  teeth  of  beasts  upon  them,  with  the  poison  of  the 
serpents  of  the  dust.    The  sword  without  and  terror  within, 
shall  destroy  both  the  young  man  and  the  virgin,  the  suck* 
ling  also,  and  the  man  of  gray  hairs"  (Deut.  xxxii,  21-25). 
"If  I  whet  my  glittering  sword,  and  my  hand  take  hold  on 
Judgment.    I  will  render  vengeance  to   mine   enemies" 
(Deut.  xxxii,  41).     "  The  Lord  said  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit 
in  the  mouths  of  all  his  prophets  "  (1  Kings,  xxii,  22).  "  The 
Lord  hath  put  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouths  of  all  his  proph- 
ets"(l  Kings,  xxii,  23).     "I  frame  evil  against  you,  and 
devise  a  device  against  you  "  (Jer.  xviii,  11).    «*  I  will  laugh 
St  your  calamity,  and  mock  when  your  fear  cometh  "  (Prov. 


i: 


c 

I 


TBI  HUMFHB»T»B1HMMCT  DnomUOK. 

latter  were  turned  OTer  for  thd  indulgence  of  the  bwe,  lust, 
ful  passiong  of  the  men  who  had  murdered  their  fathers, 
their  mothers  and  their  little  brothers.  O,  was  anything 
ever  so  shocking,  so  villainous  T  Did  devils  ever  do  any- 
thing so  bad  as  this  ?  Were  Turks  or  savages  ever  so  lost 
to  every  fine  feeling  of  the  human  heart  f  And  yet  the 
Bev.  G.  H.  Humphrey— a  professed  follower  and  teacher 
of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus—stands  up  in  this  day  of  cul- 
ture, civilization  and  refinement  and  attempU  to  justify  this 
most  abominable  and  damnable  business  I  I  am  truly  sorry 
that  be  has  espoused  a  religion  that  makes  it  necessary  for 
him  to  do  a  deed  so  abhorrent  to  every  noble  feeling  and  sym- 
pathy of  his  nature.  Good  grounds  had  Theodore  Parker 
for  saying  to  an  orthodox  clergyman,  **My  friend,  your 
God  is  my  Devil."  If  there  was  nothing  else  vile  and  ab- 
horrent in  that  old  book,  the  thirty-first  chapter  of  Num- 
bers is  alone  sufficient  to  eternally  damn  the  compilation  in 
the  eyes  of  every  kind-hearted,  just  and  sympathizing  man 
In  the  world,  and  to  cause  him  to  contemplate  with  perfect 
abhorrence  a  being  capable  of  ordering  and  approving  such 
a  bloody,  diabolical  piece  of  business.  I  never  will  love 
nor  worship  such  a  monster,  and  it  is  only  a  wonder  to  hm 
how  any  good  man  or  woman  possibly  can. 

Among  the  great  objections  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
should  be  accepted  as  the  infallible  word  of  God  is  th© 
monstrous,  unlovable  character  it  gives  to  that  being.  By 
the  chapter  just  referred  to  (Num.  xxxi,)  we  get  a  vivid 
and,  in  fact,  a  lurid  picture  of  him,  and,  as  I  remarked,  II 
constitutes  him  a  fiend  incarnate.  There  are  other  parts  of 
the  Bible  not  much  behind  in  painting  him  as  a  most  gro- 
tesque and  horrible  monster.  Let  me  quote  a  few  passages, 
*'  Smoke  came  out  of  his  nostrils,  and  fire  out  of  his  mouth, 
ao  that  coals  were  kindled  by  it*'  (2  Sam.  xxii,  f).  '*  He 
had  horns  coming  out  of  his  hands,  and  these  were  the 
hiding  of  his  power  "  (Hab.  ii,  4).  "  Out  of  his  mouth  went 
A  sharp  two-edged  tword  "  (Rev.  i,  10).   '*Oat  of  hit  mouth 


TH»  BUMPHBIT-BKinrBTT  DIBOtJSSIOV. 

goeth  a  sharp  sword  "  (xix,  15).    '•  The  Lord  shall  roar  from 
on  high.    He  roareth  from  his  habitation.    He  shaU  shout 
as  they  that  tread  the  grapes  "  (Jer.  xxv,  30).    •'  He  awak- 
ened as  one  out  of  sleep,  and  shouieth  like  a  man  drunken 
with  wine  "  (Ps.  Ixxviii,  65).    "  In  his  anger  he  persecuted 
and  slew  without  pity »'  (Lam.  iii,  45).     -  His  fury  is  poured 
out  like  fire,  and  the  rocks  are  thrown  down  by  him  "  (Nah. 
i,  6),     **He  became  angry  and  swore  »*  (Ps.  xcv.  11).    «» He 
burns  with  anger;  his  lips  are  full  of  indignation,  and  his 
tongue  as  a  devouring  fire  "  (Is,  xxx,  37).     » '  He  is  a  jealous 
God  "  (Ex.  xxxiv,  14).    '*  He  stirred  up  jealousy  "  (Is.  xiii, 
18).     "  He  was  jealous  to  fury '» (Zach.  viii,  2).     "  He  rides 
upon  horses  "(Hab.  iii.  8).     "He  cried  and  roared  "(Is. 
xlii.  18).     ••  He  laughs  in  scorn  "  (Ps.  ii,  4).     "  The  Lord  is 
a  man  of  war  "  (Ex.  xv,  8).    "  His  anger  wiU  be  accom- 
plished,  and  his  fury  rest  upon  them,  and  then  he  will  be 
comforted  "  (Ezek.  v,  13).    "His  arrows  shall  be  drunken 
with  blood"  (Deut.  xxxii,  42).     "He  is  angry  with  the 
wicked  every  day  "  (Ps.  vii.  11).    "  They  have  moved  me 
to  jealousy;  I  will  provoke  them  to  anger.    .    .    A  fire  is 
kindled  in  mine  anger,  and  shall  bum  unto  the  lowest  hell. 
I  will  heap  mischief  upon  them ;  I  will  spend  my  arrows  upon 
them.    .    ,  They  shall  be  burnt  with  hunger  and  devoured 
with  burning  heat,  and  with  bitter  destruction.    I  will  also 
send  the  teeth  of  beasts  upon  them,  with  the  poison  of  the 
serpents  of  the  dust.    The  sword  without  and  terror  within, 
shall  destroy  both  the  young  man  and  the  virgin,  the  suck- 
ling also,  and  the  man  of  gray  hairs"  (Deut.  xxxii,  21-25). 
"If  I  whet  my  glittering  sword,  and  my  hand  take  hold  on 
judgment    I  will  render  vengeance  to   mine   enemies" 
(Deut.  xxxii,  41).     «  The  Lord  said  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit' 
in  the  mouths  of  all  his  prophets  "  (1  Kings,  xxii,  22).  "  The 
Lord  hath  put  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouths  of  all  his  proph- 
eU"  (1  Kings,  xxii,  28).     "I  frame  evil  against  you,  and 
devise  a  device  against  you  "  (Jer.  xviii,  11).    "  I  wUl  laugh 
at  your  calamity,  and  mock  when  your  fear  cometh  "  (Prov. 


I 


VHB  KUMPBrniT-BXirirSTT  dhovmiov. 

i,  M).  "  I  myself  will  llgfat  against  yoa  with  an  outBiretched 
«nii«  eren  in  anger,  and  in  fury,  and  in  great  wrath  "  (Jer. 
zzi,  (Ql  "He  reserveth  wrath  for  his  enemies *'  (Nah.  i,  2). 
Hundreds  of  similar  passages  from  the  Bible  might  be 
•cited,  were  it  necessary,  to  show  the  malicious,  vindictiTe, 
«nd  merciless  character  of  /ehovah,  whom  we  are  com- 
manded to  love  as  a  being  of  transcendent  excellence, 
goodness,  and  love.  Such  an  idea  of  God  could  only  be 
devised  by  cruel,  barbarian  minds,  and  it  cannot  be  natural 
and  easy  for  reflned  and  intelligent  people  to  love  and  wor- 
ship such  a  monster.  Truthfully  did  IngersoU  exclaim: 
*'  Thtr€  mn  he  UUle  Ubert^  an  mtth  whQe  men  w^rehip  a  tyraid 

It  is  a  oonsoling  view  in  considering  the  Bible  character 
of  Qod  that  the  picture  drawn  of  him  there  must  not  be 
regarded  as  the  true  one.    The  civde  and  undeveloped  race 
of  men  have  been  making  gods  for  many  thousand  years, 
and  they  have  all  made  their  gods  after  their  own  models. 
Warlike,  fighting  nations  have  devised  warlike  and  fighting 
gods.    Peaceful  and  quiet  nations  have  had  peaceful  and 
quiet  gods.    As  the  Jews  have  been  regarded  as  one  of  the 
meanest  nations  of  men,  in  some  respects,  that  ever  had  am 
existence,  it  is  perhaps  not  strange  that  their  God  should  be 
one  of  tike  meanest  and  most  blood-thirsty  that  has  been 
heard  of  on  the  earth.    This  is  strictly  true.    Take  all  the 
gods  of  pagandom — horrible  as  many  of  them  were — and 
roll  them  all  into  one,  and  they  would  not,  in  point  of 
maliciousness,  blood-thirstiness,  vengeance,  petulence,  an- 
ger, unreasonableness,  vindictiveness,  selfishness,  injustice, 
and  all  the  attributes  that  are  horrible  and  detestable  equal 
old  Jehovah,  the  G^od  of  the  Jews.    Probably  the  mosi 
unfortunate  thing  that   ever  befel  the  people  of  Christen* 
dom  was  the  adoption  of  Jehovah  and  the  abhorrent  sys- 
tem of  theology  connected  with  him. 

It  Is  becoming  more  and  more  evident  that  God— what- 
ever the  word  may  mean— is  wholly  a  creation  of  tha 


rmm  bumfbbbt-bxnnbtt  maouanov.  887 

human  brain.    Every  man  gets  hhn  up  according  to  his 
own  fancy.    There  are  no  two  persons  who  have  the  same 
conceptions  of  God;  and  it  is  amusing  to  Usten  to  the  varied 
and  ever-varying,  wild,  crude,  and  incongruous  conceits 
about  God  that  different  persons  will  present  you.  Nobody 
that  lives  knows  anything  about  God.    Kobody  that  ever 
has  lived  knew  anything  about  him.    AJ  that  anybody 
knows  he  imagines  from  what  somebody  else  told  him,  and 
the  one  who  told  him  got  it  from  somebody  else  who  knew 
less,  if  possible,,  upon  the  subject  than  he  knew  himself. 
This  shadowy  conception  that  such  a  God  has  ever  written 
a  book,  and  embarked  in  the  publishing  business,  is  one  of 
the  wildest  vagaries  that  has  ever  seized  the  human  mind. 

I  regard  the  belief  in  gods  as  wholly  unfounded  and 
unwarranted.    This  belief  dates  back  into  man's  crude  and 
unprogressed   condition,  when  demons,    satyrs,  gnomes, 
genii,  hobgoblins,  furies,  fairies,  naiads,  byaderes,  and  all 
the  monstrosities  of  that  class  were  supposed  to  walk  the 
earth,  but  not  one  of  whom  was  ever  seen  or  known,  save 
in  the  distempered  minds  of  ignorant  and  superstitious  men 
and  women.  The  belief  in  gods  has.  in  fact,  been  the  grand 
central  superstition  of  all  the  superstitions  in  the  world.    It 
has  dragged  poor  humanity  down  into  the  chilly  damps  and 
mouldy  fogs  of  mysticism  and  ignorant  credulity  more  than 
all  the  other  beliefs  man  has  hugged  to  his  heart,  and  the 
Jewish  Bible  has  wielded  a  great  and  injurious  influence  in 
this  direction.    The  gods  have  done  nothing  for  man  save 
make  him  a  slave  to  a  designing  priesthood,  who  pretend 
to  interpret  and  declare  his  will.    Had  man  depended  lesa 
upon  gods,  and  more  upon  himself,  it  would  have  been 
greatly  to  his  advantage. 

The  following  remarks  from  a  sermon  by  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  are  to  the  point  and  worthy  of  attention:  "No- 
body can  see  God.  He  is  to  everybody  but  an  idea.  It  is 
an  idea,  too.  which  we  fashion  in  our  own  mind  and  pro- 
ject into  some  external  form,  for  every  man  in  this  life 


TBM  amfPEnXT-BXMlfSTT  jiiBUumov. 

mttst  put  into  form  anytbing  which  he  distinctly  conoeiTei 
of.  The  mode  ef  forming  that  idea  makes  the  difference 
between  barbarians,  semi-civilized  and  civilized  men  all  the 
way  up.  AU  fmn  the  Ood  they  tDorship;  some  by  one 
method  and  some  by  another.  Some  with  higher  materials, 
representing  the  elements  of  thought  and  beauty— that  is 
the  Greek ;  Fome  with  moral  qualities  and  dispositional 
affections  representing  the  true  Christian  conception  of 
Qod,  not  magisterial,  but  paternal,  as  if  paternity  itself  was 
the  highest  conception  of  which  the  human  mind  is  capa- 
ble, as  if,  under  the  element  of  divine  paternity,  justice, 
power  and  law  rank  themselves  as  subordinate,  love  being 
the  highest,  and  parental  love  the  noblest  conception,  and 
all  moral  quality,  inhering  in  the  supreme,  superlative  idea 
of  love— an  idea  yet  struggling  for  birth  into  human  light, 
not  yet  born  or  grown.  If  we  could  throw  upon  a  screen, 
as  objects  in  science  are  thrown  and  magnified,  the  real 
conception  which  a  Christian  man  forms  of  Qod,  it  Is  not 
probable  they  would  come  nearer  together  than  the  generic. 
Specifically  they  would  differ  firom  one  another,  as  one  man 
differs  from  another.  This  Being  is  represented  to  us  as 
compassing  the  Universe— as  having  scope  that  is  simply 
immeasurable.  The  element  of  time,  as  well  as  scope  of 
being,  must  needs  belong,  and  does  belong  to  our  inherent 
conception  of  God.*' 

I  must  confess  to  you  that  the  picture  you  draw  of  an 
affectionate  mother  whipping  her  offspring  with  such  un- 
natural severity  as  to  make  it  shriek  and  writhe  with  agony, 
as  an  excuse  for  the  still  greater  torment,  which  you  fain 
believe  your  God  inflicts  upon  his  offspring,  almost  shocks 
my  finer  sensibilites.  Can  you  for  a  moment  see  anything 
in  such  cruelty  and  severity  commendable  in  a  parent  ?  Is 
such  a  government  your  highest  ideal  of  love  and  affec- 
tion T  Can  you  indeed  respect  a  parent  or  a  Heavenly 
Father  who  finds  an  excuse  for  beating  unmercifully  or 
torturing  endlessly  his  own  flesh  and  blood,  the  children 


rSE  HUMPHBBT-BBNNBTT  DISCUSSIOir. 

Of  his  own  begetting  f    By  far  do  I  prefer  the  sentiments 
of  Ingersoll,  whom  you  seem  to  so  greatly  dislike.    In  a 
late  lecture  he  said:  "What  right  have  you  totyranize  over 
a  child  ?    I  have  very  little  respect  for  a  man  that  cannot 
govern  his  child  without  brute  force.    Think  of  whipping 
children  I    Why,  they  say  that  children  tell  lies.    Suppose 
a  man  who  is  as  much  larger  than  you  are  larger  than  a 
five-year  old  child,  should  come  to  you  with  a  pole  in  his 
hand,  *  Who  broke  that  plate  V  you  would  tremble,  your 
knees  would  knock  together,  and  you  would  swear  you 
never  saw  it,  or  it  was  cracked  when  you  got  it.    Think  of 
a  member  of  the  Exchange  whipping  one  of  his  children 
for  prevaricating  I     Think  of  a  lawyer  beating  his  own 
flesh  and  blood  because  he  had  evaded  the  truth  I    Thmk 
of  a  Wall  street  gambler  in  stocks  striking  one  of  his 
children  for  lying  I    What  an  inconsistency  !    Think  of  it ; 
and  some  of  these  men,  some  of  these  women,  that  whip 
their  children,  that  beat  their  own  flesh  and  blood,  I  wish 
they  could  have  a  photograph  taken  of  themselv^  when 
they  are  doing  it,  their  brows   corrugated  with    anger, 
their  cheeks  red  with  wrath,  and  the  little  child  shrinking, 
trembling,  crouching,  begging  I    If  this  child  should  hap* 
pen  to  die,  wouldn't  it  be  sweet  in  the  autumn,  when  the 
maple  trees  are  turning  to  gold  and  when  the  scarlet  vine 
runs  like  a  sad  regret  out  of  the  earth— wouldn't  it  be  de- 
lightful to  go  and  sit  on  the  little  grassy  mound  that  cov- 
eied  the  flesh  they  had  beaten,  and  look  at  that  photograph 
of  themselves  in  the  act  of  whipping  that  child  ? 

"  Kow.  think  of  it,  think  of  it ;  and  if  all  I  say  to-night  will 
save  one  blow  from  the  tender  flesh  of  infancy,  I  am  more 
than  paid.  I  have  known  men  to  drive  their  own  children 
from  their  doors  and  then  get  down  on  their  knees  and  ask 
God  to  watch  over  them.  I  will  never  ask  God  to  do  a 
favor  to  a  child  of  mine  while  I  can  do  it,  never.  There 
are  even  some  Christians  who  act  as  if  they  really  believe 
that  when  the  Savior  said,  'Suffer  litUe  chUdron  to  come 


TBB  HTTKPBBST-SnmStT  DnCUSlIOV. 

HBto  me.'  tliat  he  had  a  whip  under  his  mantle,  and  simply 
•aid  that  to  get  them  within  striking  distance.    I  will  tell 
you  what  I  say  to  mine.    I  say  to  my  children  this:  'Go 
where  you  may;  do  what  you  will;  there  is  no  crime  you 
can  commit,  there  is  no  depth  of  infamy  to  which  you  can 
sink,  that  will  shut  to  you  my  door,  my  arms,  or  my  heart.'  " 
Another  thing.    There  is  nothing  in  the  world  like  being 
honest  with  these  little  children.    Do  not  pretend  you  are 
perfection;  you  are  not;  and  if  one  of  them  happens  to  tell 
a  story,  do  not  let  on  as  if  the  whole  world  was  going  ta 
burst    Tell  them  honestly  you  have  told  thousands  of 
them.    Do  like  the  man  did  in  Maine  when  he  said  to  his 
boy,  •  John,   Honesty  is    the  best  policy;    I  have  tried 
both.'    Do  not  pretend  you  are  perfecticm.    You  are  not. 
But  tell  them  the  best  way  is  the  right  way.    Make  them 
courageous,  and,  first  of  all,  teach  them  not  to  fear  you. 
So  raise  your  children  that  the  meanest  thing  they  do  they 
will  tell  you.    And  if  you  are  honest  with  them  they  need 
not  be  ashamed  of  it,  because  you  will  simply  compare 
experiences.*' 

We  see  here  the  difference  between  the  true  conceptions 
of  parental  love  in  an  Infidel,  who  believes  in  no  God  that 
siU  above  the  clouds  frowning  and  raving  at  his  children 
below,  but  does  believe  in  improving  the  human  race  and 
raising  them  up  to  the  highest  plane  of  human  perfection, 
and  a  pious  Christian,  who  believes  that  the  kind  father  of 
all  delights  in  torturing  his  little  frail,  helpless  children 
continually  and  hopelessly  through  all  the  endless  years  of 

eternity. 

I  am  happy  to  think  that  we  agree  upon  one  point.  You 
say:  "  Let  us  treat  the  Bible  like  any  other  book."  Here  I 
join  hands  with  you,  and  say  Amen!  Let  us  treat  it  pre- 
cisely as  we  would  any  other  book.  Let  us  criticise  ft ; 
let  us  examine  it ;  let  us  apply  to  it  the  test  of  reason 
and  science;  let  us  condemn  Its  defects,  its  errors,  and 
ito.al>aiir4illm,  precisely  a»ips  weitld  aoy^ other  book  that 


TD  HUMFRxn-nDnrsTT  msommoir.  nt 

lew  been  written.  Let  us  despise  to  cloak  or  cover 
Its  faUacies  and  ito  ignorance.  Let  us  give  it  due  credit  for 
all  It  contains  that  is  beautiful,  commendable,  and  of  value- 
but  let  us  not  swear  that  it  is  a  book  sent  from  the  throne  of 
God  in  heaven,  when  there  is  not  a  passage  nor  a  sentence 
m  It  that  might  not  easily  have  been  written  by  an  ordinary 
human  being.  Let  us  not  try  to  make  more  of  it  than  it 
really  is;  let  us  not  revere  it.  Let  us  not  make  a  fetish  of  it- 
let  us  not  claim  that  it  is  from  a  supernatural  source,  when' 
there  are  not  the  slightest  grounds  for  setting  up  such  a 
claim. 

I  have  already  taken  up  too  much  space,  and  I  must  omit 
several  remarks  which  I  would  like  to  make,  until  my  next 
reply*  I  am  sincerely  yours,  D.  M.  Bennett. 


MR.     UVnPHRBT. 

Mb.  D.  M.  Bennett,  Dear  Sir:  I  am  neither  satisfied  nor 
dissatisfied  with  your  flaunting  of  soiled  "cloth."    Know- 
ing that  Infidels  have  a  chronic  weakness  for  this  kind  of 
tiling,  I  rather  expected  it.    I  thought  it  probable  that  you 
would  compass  sea  and  land  to  gather  names,  and  come 
out  a  graduate,  with  first  honors,  from  the  "School  for 
Scandal."    But  I  confess  you  have  gone  ahead  of  my  antic- 
ipations.   I  did  not  suppose  you  would  believe  everything 
you  heard  even  about  ministers.    I  thought  you  would 
make  some  allowances  for  malicious  charges.    I  did  not 
dream  that  you  would  include  instances  of  notorious  black- 
mail,  such  as  the  case  of  Mr.  McCaffrey  of  this  city.    I  ex- 
pected you  would  remember  that  there  are  still   some 
Potiphar's  wives  in  the  world.  But  in  all  this  I  was  signally 
mistaken.    You  can  put  very  sweet  and  sentimental  con- 
structions on  the  more  than  questionable  conduct  of  men 
•Ike  Voltaire,  Shelley,  Paine,  and  Pike.  But  ministers  must 


w 

7'- 

u 


M  mm  BUKPBBBTHiBMinnT  macusaoK. 

liATe  no  charity,  no  benefit  of  a  doaK  Ererything  that 
©very  old  hag,  blackmailer,  qiiack,  or  prof  essioial  liar  may 
choose  to  say  about  any  of  them,  must  be  accepted  with 
"  blind  credulity,"  and  licked  down  like  sorghum  molasses. 
This  is  the  conduct  of  a  gentieman  who  has  so  much  to  say 
about  being  liberal,  and  hearing  both  sides  before  deciding ! 

But  inflate  your  list  as  you  will,  you  cannot  show  that 
more  than  a  yery  small  percentage  of  the  Miiistry  is  spu- 
rious. I  believe  that  there  ia  a  larger  proportion  of  it 
genuine  to-day  than  in  the  days  of  Christ  In  his  time, 
one  out  of  twelve  fell  in  three  years.  Putting  the  number  of 
the  American  clergy  at  seventy  thousand,  a  triennial  fall 
of  one  twelfth  of  them  would  amount  to  almost  two  thou- 
sand a  year.  But  everybody  knows  that  no  such  a  number 
is  found  unfaithful.  That  Jackal,  ThsJiwith  lYmes,  after  the 
most  diligent  scratching,  failed  to  dig  up  more  than  forty 
for  the  year  187^  Tour  list  covers  thousands  of  years,  and 
yet  it  does  not  aggregate  three  hundred.  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore, that  the  percentage  of  faithful  ministers  is  very  high. 

In  your  handling  of  this  matter  you  are  far  less  candid 
than  even  IngersoU  and  Paine.  The  former  says:  "  I  most 
cheerfully  admit  that  most  Christians  are  honest,  and  most 
ministers  sincere"  (Oration  on  Paine).  The  latter  declares : 
"  It  is  not  because  right  principles  have  been  violated,  that 
they  are  to  be  abandoned  "  (Age  of  Reason,  p.  67). 

We  are  not  comparing  Infidelity  and  hypocrites,  bat  Infi- 
delity and  the  Bible.  In  order  to  see  what  the  Bible 
teaches  we  have  only  to  search  it.  But  as  Infidelity  has 
adopted  no  set  of  principles,  or  standard  of  right  and  wron^r* 
we  have  no  resort  but  to  determine  its  chaiacter  from  the 
writings  and  lives  of  individual  Infidels.  We  have  found 
that  many  of  the  **  Champions"  of  Infidelity  were  men  of 
corrupt  lives.  It  would  not  be  logical  to  mention  these 
shortcomings  as  arguments,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that 
tliey  have  been  defended,  justified,  and  even  eulogized,  by 
eminent '  *  Freethinkers. "    This  brings  ua  right  back  to  the 


m  HTmPHEET-BBNNOTT  DMCUSKOH.  893 

postulate  that  Injldda,  and  InmaraZity  a^  con^^     r, 
final  confirmation  of  this  i«f  «,^     •  «"»*w«e»f.    in 

aente«=e  fro.  Z^T^l^Z^Zr  "",  '°"°''"'« 

Warner  continued  Msdef^e  of  the  Commune  LT^Lr^\ 
some  of  the  bloody  scenes  of  whi^h  ,.       "*'  *°''  "lescnbed 

«nd  the  retaking  of  plri/  Iv  ^t       '""" '"'  «^''-''""«««. 

•  Ti.„„-i,  "y  *«  government   troon.. 

Though  we  may  not.  future  generations  will  dare  ToM 

the*,  men  (the  Communists)  brave  '"-N  ^"' ^'^^'°  "» 

1. 1877.    Thus  you  see  that  youTbrethren  L  ^'  vT *"• 

to  preach  (he  holiness  of  vice  anTtu?     If     *  ""'"» 

-ime.    You  had  better  hrtSf^lSTT-  "' 

-Wherefore  come  out  from  am»gSm  a^  h  ""' 

arate.  saitu  the  Lord,  and  toar?„    ,r"        ,      '^^  '^P* 

•in.1  T»,.n  "*"  "»e  unclean  thine* 

and  I  will  receive  you  "(8  Cor  vi  17)  '" 

Tou  doubt  that  the  Bible  has  prod"uced  a  marked  effect 
Where  »  has  been  freely  cireulated  and  diligenT.yt arcf^ 
In  evidence  of  my  assertion  let  me  refer  you  to  fhl  p 
pamyof  WaU^s.    Perhaps  the  Bcr^rJ: Z  JZl 

LraKetr  K':  ''^  '"-yotherclntrr^ 
fewer  in^r*^?'    *"""  "  '''*  "^'' '    That  there  are 

Tho„  Jh  ^  ,  *"  ^  "^  *"••«'  P*"  of  the  world 

Though  t  has  Its  shortcomings,  that  little  nook  of  rock, 
•nd  rills  .s  a  model  of  Frugality,  Industry.  Honesty  72/ 

You  intimate  th«  tl»  ftw,  fc^  W vUue l«««e U i. 


TBK  HOlCFHSKT-BXinnRT  HIBCtTBBfdll. 


old.  Kow,  will  you  try  to  realize  what  the  world  would  Be 
without  its  ancient  books  7  What  would  history  be  with- 
out Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Siculus,  Xenophou,  Suetonius, 
Livy,  and  Tacitus  ?  Where  would  poetry  be  in  the  absence 
of  Horaer,  Euripides,  Sophocles,  Virgil,  and  Horace  ? 
Who  can  estimate  the  suryiving  influences  of  Socrates, 
Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Cicero,  on  philosophy  7  Archimedes, 
Holemy,  Galen,  Euclid,  must  all  be  classed  with  the  an- 
eient  scientists.  May  modern  Science  therefore  despise 
them,  and  claim  that  it  is  under  no  obligations  to  them  f 
Ton  will  answer  in  the  negative.  Why,  then,  make  mere 
tUdnesi  an  objection  to  the  Bible  7  We  possess  every  facility 
to  get  at  its  meaning  that  we  have  to  obtain  an  understand- 
ing of  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics,  which  we  profess  to 
appreciate  and  admire.  The  long  caravan  of  the  successive 
centuries  only  serve  to  show  how  that  the  inculcated  prin- 
eiplea  of  the  Scriptures  ever  commend  themselves  to  human 
Reason  and  Conscience,  and  how  that  they  have  come  out 
of  a  thousand  conflicts  only  more  polished  and  irrefragable. 

Tou  endeavor  to  show  that  the  God  of  the  Bible  is  a 
''monstrous,  unlovable  Being."  Tour  quotations  are 
mostly  figurative  expressions,  designed  to  set  forth  the 
Lord's  great  abhorrence  of  Sin,  and  the  terrible  conse- 
quences of  it.  Could  God  be  a  perfect  Being,  and  look 
upon  iniquity  with  anything  less  than  infinite  displeasure  7 
And  is  it  not  an  omnipresent  fact  that  vice  and  crime  do 
continually  plunge  men  into  unutterable  woes  7 

The  jumble  you  quote  to  "  satisfy  our  readers"  that  the 
Bible  is  "self-contradictory"  is  unworthy  of  a  serious  refuta- 
tion. I  was  astonished  to  see  you  spreading  out  such,  such, 
such— well,  I  had  rather  not  name  it.  It  must  be  attributed 
to  the  desperation  of  your  cause.  You  would  not  think  of 
treating  any  other  book  in  so  uncritical  a  manner.  The 
helter-skelter,  hit-ormiss  "Justice"  of  a  police-court  is 
much  more  equitable  and  considerate  than  the  trial  you 
five  the  Bible.    After  I  had  ihowB  you  that  the  Jews  did 


Wn  HtJMPHBBT-BEOTBTT  DISOUSaiOW.  395 

tlLI  ^''^'  '^  '^**  '^"^  *^o  expressions  "God 

o^is:  nt"  r "  ^""i "  ^^'  '^'  ^^-"^^  ^^-^-'"  -  ^- 

consistent.  Bo  you,  then,  not  know  that  the  word  "tempt" 
sometimes  means  "to  entice  to  what  is  wrong,"  aldlt 

to  "^  z;:/^ ''-':  r  ^^^^^ "  ^^^^^^->^  ^«  ^'  -tL; 

to  liberal  principles  to  exercise  a  little  reason  «nH 
^now,e.g  ,p,,,,,^^ ,,  ,,,  interpretatiofof  r^^^^^^^^ 
Y  u  say  "Jesus  did  not  see  fit  to  condemn  adultery.^'  T 
Mr.  Bennet  I    How  could  you  so  shut  your  eyes"  againi; 

Neither  do  I  condemn  thee,"  clearly  means  that  he  did 
no  condemn  the  woman  to  be  stoned^o  death,  according 

rTefar-or    f  .'^^-^-^  ^^  adultery  as  a  Sxk! 

Lk    '  If  tt ,    i"'         ''^  ^  "^^  "  ^'^"^'^  ^"i'  3-11).    YoJ 

Ty  God  wh  vTTr  ''"''"  "'  ^^^  ^"^'^  ^^^«  ^-^t^olled 
by  God,  why  they  did  not  say  ao  r    1  answer  that  they  did 

say  so     The  prophets  generally  introduced  their  messages 
With  some  such  phrase  as,  ^'Thus  saith  the  Loid."    pfu 
dec  ared  that  the  Holy  Ghost  spake  by  Esaias  the  prophet  " 
Acts  xxviii,  25);  and  .hat  "  all  Scripture  is  given  b?  insp  ra- 
tion^God"(2Tim.iii,16,    Peter  wrote  Lt  "hjry  men 

trlw'  t\  ?""  '"P'^^^^^y  ^-"Pl^y  the  word  "  but "  in  a 
^Z:::::::::!'    ^-ePointoHtsomespedmensof 

"  By  Luke  xviii,  35,  it  was  but  one  man  "  (D  M  B ) 

(Lu'kt).''""'"  """^  ""^  •**  "^  "»*  '"'y^'Jo  '"^es'-K" 

"Mark  v,  2,  says  it  was  but  one  man "  (D  M.  R 

Jm,^^Z T.  ^^ °"* °' '•"* '°°"'' »  ""»  ''•"' "  -""^le" 
spirit    (Mark). 

"  -A-ccording  to  Luke  it  was  but  one**  (D.  M.  B.) 
"And  one  of  the  malefactors  which  were  hanged  railed 
on  him  "  {Luke  xxiii.  SOV 


\i 


n 


''Matthew  slurinks  the  ntimber  and  Bays  it  was  but  one 
angel "  (D.  M.  B.). 

*'The  angel  of  the  Lord  descended  from  heaven  and 
came  and  rolled  back  the  stone  "  (Mat.  zxTiil,  2). 

"John  says  but  one  woman  came  to  the  sepulchre "(D. 

M.  B.y. 

*'  The  first  day  of  the  week  cometh  Mary  Magdalene 
(John  XX,  ly 

The  reader  will  notice  that  yon  tack  on  the  Scripture  a 
limitation  and  exclusion  which  its  language  does  not  ex- 
press. Baying  that  one  person  did  a  certain  thing  is  not  in 
itself  saying  that  nobody  else  did  it.  How  you  InUt  against 
the  truth  t 

Did  space  permit,  I  would  love  to  go  oyer  your  "pelf- 
contradictions"  one  by  one,  and  show  that  they  are  no 
contradictions  at  all.  You  follow  hostile  "  critics  :"  sup- 
pose you  show  at  least  80fM  candor,  and  read  such  works 
as  Bame8**Notes,  and  Clarke's  or  Lange's  Commentaries  on 
the  passages  you  have  quoted.  They  were  fully  as  honest, 
and  infinitely  better  Biblical  scholars  than  Voltaire.  Vol- 
ney,  Paine,  and  the  entire  cortege  of  the  Boston  Investi* 
gaioT, 

But  this  kind  of  a  weapon  has  another  edge  with  which 
we  may  clip  off  the  head  of  your  god,  more  effectuallf 
than  it  has  even  bruised  the  Bible.  Let  me  give  you  some 
samples  of  "self-contradictions"  taken  from  the  writings  of 
Thomas  Paine.  I  will  give  them  with  Infidel  f<nmeae^ 
•  •  without  comment. "    Here  they  are : 

"  I  will  endeavor  that  my  future  conduct  shall  as  much 
engage  your  honors'  approbation,  at  my  former  ka»  merited 
§(mr  diipleaevre*'  (Petition  to  the  Board  of  Excise.  1766). 

**  I  have  lived  an  Aa7i«85  and  useful  life  to  mankind;  my 
time  has  been  spent  in  doing  good  **  (Will,  1809). 

••  The  memorial  before  you,  met  with  so  much  approba- 
tion while  in  manuscript,  that  I  was  advised  to  print  4,001^ 


THE  HUMPHBBY-MWKBTT  DISCUBSIOIT.  897 

Jopies.        .    It  is  my  first  and  only  attempt  "  (Letter  to 
Dr.  Goldsmith,  1772).  ^  ^ 

m'\  ^^J«^  Published  a  syllable  in  England  in  my  life" 
(Crisis,  No.  2.    1777).  ^ 

tvZZT^o^''  ^'f  ''''''  temptation,'  is  the  prayer  of  divif^ 
ty  Itself    (Case  of  the  Excise  Officer). 

"  ?h?  M ""  "'"TT  "-""^  *^  ^"^^^^^^  '^'^"  (^Se  of  Reason). 

The  Idea  of  his  concealment,  not  only  agreee  eery  m 

with  h,8  reputed  divinity,  but  associates  with  it  som^i^g 

of  pusiUanimiiy  "  (Ibid).  * 

"I  have  furnished  myself  with  a  Bible  "  (Ibid) 
"  I  keep  no  Bible '» (Ibid). 

oZ^'m"^  ^'''''  '^^  ^"^'  ""^  '^"^  schools  to  teach  astron. 
omy    (Discourse  to  the  Theophilanthropists) 

"All  believe  in  a  God  "  (Ibid). 

•'  The  evil  that  has  resulted  from  the  error  of  the  schools 

^f  ^zAi^^m '"'  '^''*  ""'  generating,  in  the  pupils  a  species 
Of  athernn    (Discourse  to  the  Theophilanthropists). 

•*  As  individuals  we  profess  ourselves  Ohrieiiane '» (Crisis. 

"All  national  institutions  of  churches,  whether  Jewish. 
Chrutmn,  or  Turkish,  appear  to  me  no  other  than  human 
inventions  "  (Age  of  Reason). 

"Any  system  of  religion  that  has  anything  in  it  that 
shocks  the  mind  of  a  child  cannot  be  a  true  system  "  (Ibid) 

"Some  people  can  be  reasoned  into  sense,  and  others 
must  be  ehocked  into  it "  (Letter  to  Elihu  Palmer). 

••  I  hope  for  happiness  beyond  this  life"  (Age  of  Reason). 

"  I  hold  it  to  be  presumption  in  man  to  make  an  article 
of  faith  as  to  what  the  Creator  will  do  with  us  hereafter" 
(Tboughto  on  a  Future  State). 


TSB  BnKFHBXT-BBimBn  dhouiiiov* 

•*  Come,  we  sliall  be  friends  again,  f of  all  thifl  •*  (Common 

Sense). 
"  'Tis  time  to  part  "  (Lhid), 

"  KotMng  is  criminal "  (Ibid). 

"What  wickedness  tliere  is  in  this  pretended  word  of 
God  "  (Age  of  Reason). 
"There  shall  be  no  laws  but  such  as  I  like**  (Common 

Sense). 
"  I  have  always  strenuously  supported  the  right  of  every 

man  to  his  opinion"  (Age  of  Reason). 

•*King  William  never  appeared  to  full  advantage  but  in 
diflacultiea  and  in  action  ;  the  same  remark  may  be  made  on 
General  Washington,  for  the  character  fits  him"  (Crisis, 

No.  1). 
"The  commencement  of  his  (Washington's)  command 

was  the  commencement  of  inactivity.  ...  No  wonder 
we  see  so  much  pusillanimity  in  the  President,  when  we 
see  so  little  enterprise  in  the  GeMral  *'  (Letter  to  Wash- 
ington). 

"  Let  it  be  brought  forth,  placed  on  the  divine  law,  the 
word  of  God"  (Common  Sense). 

"As  to  the  book  called  the  Bible,  it  is  blasphemy  to  call 
it  the  word  of  God  "  (Letter  to  Mr.  Dean). 

"  I  have  an  established  fame  in  the  literary  world  '*  (Let- 
ter L  to  the  Citizens  of  the  U.  S.). 

"ir*»  unknown  humble  servant  and  admirer,  Thomas 
Painb  "  (Letter  to  Dr.  Goldsmith). 

" It  is  my  fate  to  be  always  plagued  with  fools"  (Letter 
IL  to  the  Citizens  of  the  U.  S.). 

"I  attended  the  philosophical  lectures  of  Martin  and 
Ferguson,  and  became  afterwards  acquainted  with  Dr. 
Bevis,  of  the  society,  called  the  Royal  Society "  (Age  of 
Reason). 


THE  mnrPHRET-BBNNSTT  DISCUSSIdJT. 


S09 


"•The  root  of  the  word  is  the  Latin  verb  Zi^o"  (Of  the 
Word  Religion). 
*'I  did  not  learn  Latin  "  (Age  of  Reason). 

It  would  be  very  easy  thus  to  arrange  '•  144  self-contradUs- 
tions  of  Thomas  Paine."  But  I  am  afraid  Uiat  Infidel 
^•critics"  do  not  always  go  by  the  Golden  Rule,  "Do  unto 
others  as  ye  would  that  they  should  do  unto  you." 

Having  exposed  the  common  objections  to  the  Bible,  I 
will  now  offer  some  positive  evidences  of  itssuperhumanity, 
or  Divinity.  Lest  we  may  seem  to  assume  anything  unwar 
#antably,  let  us  begin  at  the  beginning. 

I.  You  will  hardly  deny  that  the  material  IJniverse  exists. 
t  will  suppose  that  you  have  confidence  in  the  testimony  of 
-consciousness  and  of  the  senses.  You  believe  in  the  real- 
ity of  the  Human  Mind.  You  admit  that  that  Mind  is  ^ov- 
«rned  by  cerUin  inherent  laws  of  thought.  In  short,  it  ia 
taken  for  granted  that  Man  has  an  actual,  personal,  com- 
«cious,  and  rational  existence. 

IL  it  is  further  self-evident  that  eomeVdng  must  havo 
existed  from  eternity— either  Matter,  or  Mind,  or  both.  It 
is  true  that  the  unbcgotten  being  of  either  is  an  unwieldy 
idea.  But  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  it  must  be 
admitted  and  entertoined.  €t  is  an  axiom  that  nothing  can 
•come  of  nothing. 

To  assume  the  beginningless  self  existence  of  Matter,  and 
of  Matter  alone,  is  to  accept  the  most  difficult  of  two  sup- 
positions. 

1.  By  adopting  this  view  we  do  not  escape  the  Mysteri- 
ous, the  Unknowable,  and  the  Incomprehensible.  Even^he 
building-lots  of  the  Universe— Space  and  Duration- are  too 
"Vast  for  the  mind's  survey.  Force  is  in  itself  inscrutable.  The 
immensity  of  the  Creation  eludes  the  grasp  of  the  bumaa 
intellect.  Our  own  little  sphere  is  a  Sphinx,  whose  ultimate 
wcrets  no  one  can  coax  out.  Yea,  we  are  lost  in  the  laby- 
rinths of  our  own  personal  being.    Nature  has  written  over 


4oa 


THE  IIUllPnRET-BB»lfKTT  l>ISCXJS»IOir, 


THK  SUlCPHRXT-BaNNXTT  BOOUUSOX, 


mi 


t'i" 


many  of  her  gates:  "Positively  no  Admittance.**  We  mu8t 
••  Inquire  at  the  Office  "—we  oust  consult  the  DiTine  Scrip- 
tures, if  we  would  be  admitted  into  the  inner  courts  of  her 
significance.  And  eyen  there  we  are  often  refused  aa 
entrance.  Mystery  t  Mystery  I  Mystery!  is  inscribed  all 
over  the  Universe  ;  and  this  Mystery  is  multiplied  a  thou- 
sandfold by  the  hypothesis  that  Matter  is  self-existent  ancl 
self  evolving. 

2.  This  supposition  is  discountenanced  by  the  familiar 
law.  That  nothing  can  rise  higher  than  its  source.  If  man 
were  entirely  of  the  earth,  he  would  be  entirely  earthy. 
But  we  know  that  such  is  not  his  character.  He  has  ideas 
and  desires  that  soar  above  and  beyond  all  material  things. 
His  thoughts  wander  through  Eternity.  He  has  longings 
after  Immortality,  and  aspirations  after  the  Infinite. 
Kow,  if  the  artesian  well  of  the  human  mind  cannot  eject 
thoughts  higher  than  its  own  source;  and  if  that  mind  sends 
up  longings  and  conceptions  that  terminate  on  the  Super- 
mundane and  Extramundane,  it  follows  that  it  Is  itself  the 
emanation  of  a  supernatuial  Power. 

8.  If  nothing  exists  but  Matter  and  its  properties,  we  have 
then  the  incredible  and  unthinkable  phenomenon  of 
thought  without  a  thinker;  law  without  a  law-giver;  fore- 
sight without  a  foreseer  ;  and  design  without  a  designer. 
The  Creation  exhibits  innumerable  indications  of  plan, 
ingenuity,  arrangement,  beneficence,  and  wisdom.  The 
hypothesis  that  all  this  has  taken  place  Independently  of 
Mind  violates  at  once  our  experience  and  necessary  con- 
viction. 

4.  II  atheistic  Materialism  is  true,  nothing  can  have  a 
moral  character.  Right  and  Wrong  are  mere  figments. 
There  can  be  no  virtue  or  crime  where  everything  is  ground 
out  from  between  the  whirling  millstones  of  Fate  and 
Chance.  The  assassin's  and  the  thunderbolts  stroke  are 
equally  irresponsible.  Man  is  not  a  free  agent.  Yolition 
and  gravitation  an  alike  unmoral.    Thought,  desire,  lovc^ 


malice,  charity,  envy,  are  as  really  matter  as*  the  rock, 
tide,  volcano,  or  Dismal  Swamp.  This  excludes  Respond 
sibility  and  Morality  from  existence. 

But  man  is  conscious  of  mental  liberty.  He  is  bom  with 
a  judgment  that  certain  acts  are  commendable,  while  others 
are  culpable.  He  feels  that  he  is  to  blame  for  being  foolish 
or  mean.  There  are  Responsibility,  Right,  Wrong,  and 
Free  Agency  in  the  Universe :  therefore  Materialism  is 
untrue. 

III.  A  God  exists.  This  supposition  is  not  only  the  most 
reasonable,  but  it  also  involves  the  fewest  difliculties.  We 
have  here  indeed  the  overwhelming  thought  of  eternal  self- 
existence;  but  it  is  the  self -existence  of  Life  and  Mind. 
This  is  a  more  genial  and  probable  necessity  than  the  oppo- 
site one. 

But  if  the  eternity  of  God  is  inscrutable,  the  fact  of  his 
existence  is  not  hard  to  prove: 

1.  Suppose  we  apply  the  Darwinian  Theory  to  this  ques- 
tion.  We  find  that  the  stages  of  man's  ascent  are  from  Athe- 
ism, through  P0I3  theism,  up  to  Monotheism.  The  Ape  is  an 
Atheist.    So  are  the  races  of  men  next  to  him  (Lubbock's 
Origin  of  CiviliBation,  N.  Y.,  1873,  pp.  244,  253-6;    Dar- 
win's  Descent  of  Man,  N.  Y.,  1873,  vol.  i,  pp.  62-66).    As 
man  advances  in  knowledge,  culture,  and  morality,  he 
leaves  Atheism  behind,  and  passes  through  a  region  where 
the  gods  are  many,  but  all  finite,  until  at  last  he  reaches  the 
ultimate  conception  of  One  God,  who  is  a  spirit,  infinite, 
eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power, 
holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth.    Theism  is  the  point 
of  man's  highest  development. 

2.  The  most  learned  and  intelligent  Infidels  have  been 
believers  in  the  existence  of  God.  We  may  include  in 
this  list  Celsus,  Porphyry,  Hierocles,  Tindal,  Toland, 
Collins,  Shaftesbury,  Herbert,  Hobbes,  Bolingbroke, 
Hume,  Gibbon,  Woolston,  Blount,  Voltaire,  Cabanis,  Bar- 
low, Yolney,  Allen,  Strauss,  and  Robert  Dala  Owen.    Dar- 


lot  TBB  KUMFHBST-BBiniSTT  DltflflBIOV. 

win,  Tyiidall,  Huxley,  Draper,  and  Spencer  deny  that  they 
are  Atheists.  It  is  the  stinted  conclusion  of  the  specula- 
tions of  J.  Stuart  Mill  that  an  Intelligent  Mind  has  fash- 
ioned the  present  order  of  things  (Three  Essays  on 
Religion,  pp.  242-3).  Goethe  called  D'Holbach's  •*  System 
of  Nature*'  a  " cadaverous  spectre. '*  All  these  men  denied 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and  professed  to  follow  only 
the  light  of  Reason.  But  in  that  light  they  learned  to  shuni 
Atheism.  Some  of  them  attacked  it  with  vehemence. 
Paine  pronounced  it  a  *'  scandal  to  human  nature.*'  They 
held  that  the  being  of  God  is  *'  undeniable/'  '*  self-evident,*' 
"  reasonable,'*  *'  demonstrable.**  This  admission  from  men 
who  denied  so  much  is  weighty  in  favor  of  Theism. 

3.  It  is  not  dogmatism  to  say  that  there  is  something  in 
human  nature  which  must  assume  and  recognize  the  being 
of  God.  It  is  true  that  (he  intensity  of  this  something  may 
vary  in  different  individuals.  The  brutality  of  some 
natures  is  so  rank  that  its  effluvia  absorbs  and  corrupts  the 
aroma  of  the  heart's  noblest  promptings.  It  is  possible  too 
for  a  man  to  read  and  speculate  in  such  a  way  aa  to  greatly 
modify,  if  not  reverse,  the  spontaneous  workings  of  his 
mind.  But  we  are  now  talking  of  natural  human  nature. 
I  say  that  there  is  an  innate  recognition  of  a  Supreme  Being 
in  Buch  a  nature.  If  we  analyze  consciousness  carefully, 
we  will  find  in  ourselves,  as  Schleiermacher  said,  a  constant 
feeling  of  dependence.  We  may  not  be  always  conscious 
of  it  But  let  a  tornado  sweep  the  ocean,  or  a  thunder- 
storm shake  the  firmament,  and  this  dormant  feeling  will 
become  a  vivid  reality. 

This  native  disposition  is  sometimes  brought  out  by  some 
special  circumstance.  Even  a  godless  man,  when  over- 
whelmed by  some  great  agony,  will  ejaculate  an  appeal  to 
an  unseen  Power.  He  does  not  mean  Nature,  Force,  or 
Fate.  He  addresses  Personality.  But  how  did  he  come  to 
shriek  that  appeal!  Was  it  automatic?  No;  he  had  never 
Irained  Uis  lips  to  pray.    Was  it  the  result  of  deliberation  f 


THB  HDIIPHRKY-BENNETT  DI»CU88IOW. 

^ot  at  all  for  it  sprung  from  his  soul  unawares  to  himself 
Was  It  the  result  of  a  religious  education  f  Not  necessa- 
nly.  He  may  have  lacked  such  an  advantage.  Possibly  he 
lived  only  to  despise  it.  That  ejaculatory  prayer-for  a 
SI  i-  ""^.^/^^^^-^-^  nothing  less  than  the  soul's 

7TT       '''"'  "  ""  ^"''  ^^"""«  '^  ^ncrustments 
under  the  pressure  of  distress. 

How,  on  any  other  theory,  are  we  to  account  for  the  uni^ 

.^^y  of  this  belief?    We  find  that  man,  in  every  age  a^d 

sten  from  TT'"""'"'  "'^'^  ^^  ^*«  ^^^^  bu7aicond 
step  from  the  brute,  ceases  to  be  an  Atheist.    There  must 

be  a  cause  as  universal  as  this  effect.  Tradition,  imitation, 
and  education  are  all  inadequate  to  account  for  it  Whv 
m^'^^l^  ''  as  we  would  some  of  the  other  universal 
^aitsof  human  nature.  We  find  that  mothers  love  their 
c^spnng  the  world  over.  There  is  a  conviction  as  exten- 
sive  as  the  race  that  marital  fidelity  is  a  virtue  and  that 
rlt  InT '"  T"""'    """  ^'^*^^«^*-«-  of  these  facts  is  cor- 

human  heart.    Though  mothers  manifest  their  love  very 
^erenUy,  in  manner  and  degree,  and  though  the  laws  Z 

ZZ^Z""^    "'"*'  '''^'^'''^'  '"^  ^''^'  underlying  instinct 
ZZlT     f  '*°^'-    ^*  ^  *"  ^'^^  ^^«  i'^'^itive  conviction 

the  one  great  fundamental  feeling  that  there  is  such  a  being 

of^M? ^'  ^«  *d°^]rably  supported  by  Phrenology-^  system 
of  philosophy  adopted  by  many  Infidels.    According  to 

Supreme  Being  as  their  object.    They  are  called  the  Moral 
and  Religious  Faculties  (Fowler's  Phrenology  pp  ^  im 
They  terminate  on  God.    Their  function  is%L';;Je^^^ 

r^iol'T' "'  """^''*-  ^^^^  ^  ^  -'i^--  Of  tT; 

'aiiglous  sentiments. 


I 


THE  HITMFirRET-BBTfNETT  DISCVBSIOV. 

Bat  if  man  is  constituted  with  faculties  whose  object  is 
0od,  does  it  not  follow  that  a  God  exists  T  We  find  the 
world  full  of  such  correspondences.  A  full  udder  answers 
to  the  Iambus  instinctive  craving  and  seekiing  for  nourish- 
ment. The  ten«irils  of  the  vine  do  not  stretch  out  their  fin- 
gers into  vacuity.  Throughout  Nature,  an  instinct  or  a 
faculty  indicates  the  reality  of  iu  object.  According  to 
Phrenology,  the  being  of  God  is  as  certain  as  the  ozistence 
of  the  crowns  of  our  heads. 

4  The  argument  from  Design  is  absolutely  conclusive. 
I  am  aware  that  this  argument  has  been  attacked  of  late. 
Two  or  three  famous  writers  have  made  some  belittling 
criticisms  on  it,  and  the  thousand  and  one  parrot-Infidels 
have  learned  to  repeat  their  words.  The  gist  of  their  denial 
is,  that  Nature  contains  evidences  of  design,  as  such. 

To  be  convinced  of  the  contrary,  we  have  only  to  open 
our  eyes.  The  Universe  is  full  of  arrangements.  The  stars 
in  the  firmament  are  not  pitched  together  pell-mell.  The 
solar  system  is  systematic.  In  our  own  world  we  find  in- 
numerable instances  and  varieties  of  contrivance.  Guyot 
has  shown  that  the  very  positions  of  the  earth*s  mountain- 
ranges  are  indicative  of  a  far-seeing  and  beneficent  plan 
(Earth  and  Man).  The  vegetable  kingdom  exhibits  myri- 
ads of  most  delicate/  ingenious,  and  admirable  adaptations 
of  means  to  ends.  It  is  no  lees  so  in  the  animal  kingdom. 
The  study  of  physiology,  anatomy,  gestation,  incubation, 
and  instinct  ushers  us  into  an  immense  museum  of  marveL. 
ous  wisdom,  foresight,  and  purpose. 

There  are  doubtless  many  things  whose  utility  we  cannot 
always  perceive.  Nature  seems  to  contain  some  Instances 
of  failure.  But  we  ought  to  remember  that  we  are  not  om- 
niscient. An  apparent  fizzle  may  be  in  fact  a  splendid  suc- 
cess. The  flower  in  the  desert  does  not  really  waste  its  fra- 
grance. It  throws  its  mite  of  perfume  into  the  circumam- 
bient treasury  of  the  air.  The  city  swell,  visiting  a  country 
<;ousin,  may  say  that  the  dunghill  behind  the  stable  answers 


TBI  HmfPHSxT-BBinnm  uisouaaioir. 


M 


BO  purpose.  The  country  courin  knows  better.  Let  mate- 
rialistic swells  keep  in  mind  that  there  may  be— as  there 
certainly  is— adaptation,  contrivance,  and  success  even 
where  they  are  utterly  unable  to  detect  them. 

I  know  of  nothing  so  well  worth  reading  on  this  subject 
as  Paley's  "Natural  Theology.'*  Let  no  Infidel  turn  up  his 
nose  at  it,  and  say  that  it  is  old.  It  is  not  near  so  old  as  Vol- 
taire's Works;  nor  is  it  quite  so  antique  as  Paine's  **Age  of 
Reason."  It  is  unfair  to  sneer  at  it  before  it  is  read.  I  am 
confident  that  if  you  will  give  it  a  thorough  study  you  will 
admire  it  and  receive  immense  benefit  from  it. 

There  are  other  arguments  for  the  being  of  God  ;  but 
they  are  mostly  of  a  metaphysical  character.    The  curious 
reader  will  find  an  excellent  summary  of  them  in  Hodge's 
Systematic  Theology,  N.  Y.,  1872,  vol.  i,  pp.  204-215.  They 
need  not  be  given  here.    The  foregoing  consideration^-the 
insurmountable  difficulty  of  conceiving  of  the  eternal  self- 
existence  and  self-arrangement  of  Matter;  the  fact  that  only 
the  very  lowest  races,  «he  quasi-apes,  are  atheistic;  the 
admission  of  the  most  distinguished  Infidels  ;  the  universal 
conviction  of  mankind;  the  testimony  of  Phrenology;  and 
the  plans,  designs,  previsions,  and  contrivances  so  strikingly 
manifest  in  the  world-all  attest  and,  together,  demonstrate 
the  existence  of  God. 

IV.  We  are  now  prepared  to  assert  the  supernatural. 
God  is  Himself  the  Great  Supernatural.  His  existence 
being  established,  Miracles  are  possibilities  and  probabili- 
ties. Since  there  is  a  Revealer,  a  Revelation  is  to  be  ex- 
pected. If  a  Creator  exists,  is  it  not  credible  that  he  would 
pay  attention  to  his  creatures,  and  especially  to  his  rational 
creatures?  Is  it  not  likely  that  he  would  make  his  Chara.> 
ter  and  Will  known  to  them  ?  In  looking  over  the  world 
we  find  that  the  condition  of  man  is  such  that  he  needs  such 
assistance.  By  contemplating  the  beneficence  of  his  works, 
we  must  infer  that  his  Maker  is  dUpoted  to  give  it.  Will  yon 
ttply  that  his  works  are  a  sufficient  revelation  of  his  Being, 


406 


THE  HUMPHRET-BSNNBTT  DlflCUiaiOM* 


Attributes,  and  Bequirements?  I  deny  it.  The  twUight  of 
Nature  has  never  satisfied  the  human  soul.  This  is  shown 
by  the  sad,  unsatisfactory  guess-works  of  the  Qreek  and 
Roman  philosophers,  and  by  the  alleged  communications 
from  aboye  clung  to  by  nearly  every  nation  and  tribe. 
Even  Spiritualism  is  an  undesigned  testimony  to  this  fact 
There  is  aji  indestructible  belief  in  the  unsophisticated  mind 
that  the  material  creation  is  but  the  first  volume  of  the 
Divine  Revelation.  Every  eye  turns  to  look  for  a  Volume 
Second,  wherein  is  contained  the  sum  and  conclusion  of 
the  whole  matter.  Man  is  dissatisfied  and  uncertain  with- 
out it  Under  such  circumstances  it  is  presumable  that  a 
benevolent  God  would  bestow  on  his  creatures  and  children 
that  which  they  so  much  need  and  desire. 

V.  The  claim  of  the  Bible  to  be  such'a  Revelation,  is 
stronger  than  that  of  any  other  book  or  set  of  books.  This 
I  shall  endeavor  to  show  by  reference  to  a  few  palpable 
facts: 

1.  The  $im  of  the  Bible  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  its  pre- 
tensions. It  is  neither  so  small  as  to  be  contemptible,  not 
so  large  as  to  be  impracticable.  The  "sacred  books  "  of 
the  Chinese  and  Hindus  are  ponderous  and  almost  count- 
less. A  life  time  would  be  insufficient  to  read  them  over. 
It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  Most  High  would  reveal 
his  Will,  and  then  practically  conceal  it  in  immense  and 
innumerable  folios.  It  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  a 
book  given  for  his  guidance  would  be  tractabU,  Now  the 
Bible  bears  this  characteristic  more  plainly  than  any  other 
venerated  writings.  The  Koran  is  of  a  similar  size  ;  bal 
In  this,  as  In  many  other  respects,  it  is  only  an  imlation  of 
the  Bible. 

2.  The  nmpUdty  of  the  Scriptures  is  extraordinary.  It  is 
very  natural  to  authors  occasionally  to  put  on  airs,  and 
make  some  flourishes  of  style.  But  there  is  nothing  of  this 
kind  in  the  Bible.  As  we  read  it  we  never  feel  that  iU 
writers  are  WMimg  an  tgorU    It  is  free  from  pedantry.    It 


TH«  HUMPEBBT-BBVITBTT  DZ8CU88I0H.  407 

has  steered  clear  of  the  dry  formaUties  of  legal  documents. 
There  is  no  affectation  about  it  It  narrates  its  histories 
and  states  its  doctrines  with  the  grand  plainness  of  a  hale 
old  sage  that  has  outgrown  the  pomposity,  sophomority, 
vanity,  and  aflfectedness  of  his  younger  years.  This  would 
be  remarkable  in  a  volume  composed  by  a  single  author. 
How  much  more  remarkable  must  it  be  in  a  book  written 
by  about  forty  different  men  I 

8.  Another  striking  feature  of  the  Bible  is  its  tandm.    It 
is  common  for  a  nation  to  magnify  the  virtues  and  to  pal- 
hate  or  conceal  the  imperfections  of  its  heroes.    But  the 
sacred  writers  did  not  seem  to  be  even  inclined  in  that 
direction.    They  told  of  the  faults,  sins,  and  crimes  of  the 
Hebrew  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  kings,  as  undisguisedly 
as  if  they  had  been  recounting  the  deeds  of  their  enemies. 
Where  did  the  Inffdel  find  out  so  much  about  the  iniquities 
of  the  ancient  Jews  ?    Strange  to  say,  it  was  from  the  Jew- 
ish annalists.    Never  did  a  nation's  official  historian  draw 
such  a  dark  picture  of  it,  as  the  Bible  has  given  of  the 
Israelites.    It  is  a  marvel  that  Jews  should  write  such  a 
history,  and  a  greater  marvel  still  that  the  Jewish  people 
should  adopt  it    Was  not  aU  this  inhuman,  to  say  the 
least  r 

4.  StiU  another  unique  characteristic  of  the  Bible  is  its 
incuHosUy.  Man  is  prone  to  follow  up  incidental  thoughts 
and  events.  He  is  apt  to  forget  his  main  theme  and  become 
absorbed  in  side-issues.  He  is  fond  of  episodes.  Hints 
and  peeps  have  a  strong  tendency  to  lead  him  away  from 
his  central  pursuit.  But  a  little  observation  will  show  that 
the  Bible  is  uraike  human  nature  in  this  respect  It  starts 
out  to  give  an  account  of  the  origin,  development,  trials, 
and  fulfillment  of  a  certain  scheme  called  Redemption! 
Nothing  has  distracted  its  attention  from  this  one  object 
The  lightnings,  thunders,  and  earthquakes  of  cotempora- 
neous  events,  did  not  even  turn  its  eye  from  the  mark  set 
before  it    It  does  not  say  anything  mtrdyXo  graUfy  curi- 


p 

> 


408 


VBB  HmPHSBT-Bnnritt  ttttottmoi. 


I 


oiity.  It  throws  no  light  on  the  dettiny  of  the  tea  tribes 
It  does  not  tell  us  how  the  ship  got  along  after  Jonah  had 
been  hurled  from  it.  It  gives  no  account  of  Mary»s  closing 
years.  It  contains  no  pen-pictures  of  the  Apostles.  It 
never  indulges  in  guessing,  theorizing,  or  speculation.  It 
ignores  man's  curwiity,  and  regards  only  his  needs.  It  is 
like  a  father  carrying  his  sick  child  to  the  doctor.  He  does 
not  linger  by  the  way  to  tell  the  little  one  all  about  every- 
thing it  may  chance  to  point  its  finger  at.  He  hastens  to 
his  destination.  In  its  unbroken  self-possession  and  unin- 
terrupted mindfulness  of  its  one  aim.  the  Bible  is  consist- 
ent with  all  that  is  claimed  for  it 

5.  The  Bible  makes  God  the  all-important  idea.  He  is 
King  of  kings  and  Lotd  of  lords.  Men  are  only  his  crea- 
tures, children,  and  servants.  Viewed  in  one  aspect,  they 
are  very  insignificant  beings.  They  are  but  of  yesterday, 
and  know  nothing.  They  are  carried  away  as  with  a  flood. 
Their  lives  are  but  a  sleep— a  mere  nap.  Only  the  Almighty 
is  great.  It  is  the  eternal  duty  of  man  to  love  him  with  all 
his  heart,  soul,  strength,  and  mind  (Luke  x,  27).  Now  all 
this  is  reasonable— nothing  else  would  be  reasonable— on  the 
supposition  that  there  is  an  everlasting  and  infinite  God,  who 
Is  our  Creator,  Preserver,  and  most  bountiful  Benefactor. 

0.  To  me  there  is  an  evidence  of  the  superhuman  in  the 
Bible  in  its  immenm  thoughtfulnm  and  infinite  euggestiffeneae. 
It  is  not  a  large  volume.  But  there  never  was  a  man  that 
could  place  his  hand  on  it  and  say,  "  I  know  and  understand 
all  it  contains."  The  most  diligent  student  closes  his  inves- 
tigations of  it,  feeling,  liKe  Newton  in  the  presence  of  the 
Universe,  that  he  was  but  a  gatherer  of  shells  on  the  shores 
of  the  unfathomable  sea.  Men  can  master  other  books.  Il 
does  not  require  much  application  to  comprehend  all  that 
Arisloile,  Plato,  Cicero,  or  any  other  philosopher,  ever 
wrote.  Whatever  proceeds  from  man  can  be  grasped  and 
mastered  by  man.  But  the  Bible  cannot  be  so  grasped  and 
maatertd.    Henot  it  must  be  mora  than  kuaalt 


THl  ttmc^fiBBT-BIimBTT  DISCtJSUOH. 


^nRi 


7.  The  Bible  is  exposed  to  the  same  objections,  and  de- 
fensible by  the  same  arguments,  as  Nature.    Is  the  Bible 
old  ?    The  world  is  older.    Have  men  quarreled  over  the 
Bible  T    They  have  waged  fierce  wars  for  the  possession  of 
disputed  tracts  of  the  earth  s  surface.    Is  it  said  that  the 
Bible  is   self-contradictory?     Polytheistic    nations   have 
brought  and  still  bring  the  same  charge  against  the  physical 
forces.    Does  the  Old  Testament  seem  to  approve  of  heart- 
less severity,  under  some  cireumstances  ?  It  is  not  equal  in 
this  respect  to  the  remorseless  elements.    Even  the  genial 
sun  strikes  men  dead.    Has  the  Bible  been  differently  under- 
stood on  some  minor  points  ?    The  Creation  has  shared  the 
same  misfortune  for  thousands  of  years.    Is  the  Bible  ex- 
posed  to  human  blundering  and  tampering  f    So  is  Nature. 
The  original  channels  of  rivers  have  been  changed.    The 
white  man»s  cities  are  built  on  the  Indian's  hunting  grounds. 
The  woodman  clears  the  forest,  and  thereby  lessens  the 
average  quantity  of  rain  and  diminishes  the  mean  depth  of 
streams.    Hills  are  made  low  and  valleys  are  filled  up  by  the 
picks  and  shovels  of  civUization.    Does  the  Bible  seem  to 
contain  dry  and  worthless  portions?    They  are  neither  more 
dry  than  the  Sahara  desert,  nor  more  worthless  than  Nova 
Zembla.    Are  there  some  things  in  the  Bible  "  that  would 
shock  the  mind  of  a  child  •'?   The  mind  of  a  child  would  be 
shocked  by  a  big  dog,  a  thunderclap,  or  a  corpse.    Does 
somebody  say  the  Bible  is  generally  a  very  defective  book? 
J.  Stuart  Mill  pronounced  Nature  generally  a  very  imper- 
fect concern.    Thus  we  might  go  through  the  whole  list 
of  cavils  and  objections,  and  show  that  every  one  of  them 
presses  as  hard  against  the  constitution  and  course  of  Na- 
ture as  against  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.    Now,  does 
this  exposedness  to  the  very  same  criticisms  not  show  that 
Nature  and  the  Bible  emanated  from  the  same  Mind,  and 
that  they  were  constructed  on  the  same  plan?    But  no 
one  contends  that  Nature  Is  of  human  origin.    Why,  then, 
not  admit  that  the  Book  that  is  made  on  the  same  gen« 


i 


I 


4m 


nn  ■uxPBBBT-BSHinm  onouaaioH. 


end  principle,  that  Is  open  to  the  same  otjectione,  end 
defensible  by  the  seme  arguments  as  Nature,  is  of  super- 
human origin  f 

8.  An  argument  may  he  based  on  the  eBi^tuiioeMm  of  the 
Bible.  It  embraces  every  moral  duty.  While  some  of  its 
regulations  were  expressly  local,  national,  and  temporary, 
the  great  bulk  of  its  precepts  are  adapted  to  all  times, 
places,  and  conditions  of  man.  It  may  not  have  an  explicit 
rale  for  every  possible  emergency;  but  it  has  a  principle 
out  of  which  a  rule  can  be  made  impromptu.  It  will  be 
extremely  embarrassing  to  account  for  this  feature  of  it, 
and  claim  that  it  is  all  of  man,  and  especially  $ueh  men  as 
the  Hebrews  were.  How  could  an  ancient  people  compile 
a  system  of  morals  adapted  to  the  varying  conditions  of  all 
coming  ages  f  Above  all  things,  how  could  a  secluded  and 
narrow-minded  people  like  the  Jews  give  being  to  a  set  of 
principles  suitable  to  the  whole  world  no  less  than  to  them- 
selves? We  find  that  all  human  ordinances,  laws,  and 
constitutions  become  impracticable  with  time.  But  Chris- 
tendom has  never  felt  that  the  Bible  needs  a  codicil  or 
amendment.  The  occasional  revisions  of  versions  are 
made  expressly  ta  keep  U  from  changing  with  the  constant 
mutations  of  language.  Who  but  an  All-wise  God  could 
thus  prepare  a  Book  of  universal  and  permanent  adapta- 
tion? 

9.  This  brings  us  to  another  kindred  argument,  viz:  That 
the  cardinal  principles  of  the  Bible  were  far  in  advance  of 
the  ages  when  they  were  first  announced.  Its  pronounced 
Monotheism  came  forth  from  a  country  notorious  for  its 
Polytheism.  The  credit  for  this  can  be  hardly  given  to  the 
Jews,  for  Monotheism  continued  among  them  more  in  spite 
of  them  than  with  their  favor.  Nor  can  this  be  accounted 
for  by  attributing  it  all  to  Moses,  for  he  was  raised  and  edu- 
cated for  forty  years  under  polytheistic  influences.  The 
Idea  of  an  abtotutety  holy  Ood  was  new  to  the  world  at  the 
time  of  its  first  promulgation  (Ex.  xv,  U;  Lev.  xix,  2).    The 


TaS  HUMPH&BT-BEKNETT  DISCUSSION. 


411 


conception  of  a  spiritual  Being  originated  in  an  age  of  uni- 
versal idolatry.  The  Messiah,  the  Son  of  Man,  or  Human- 
ity, came  forth  from  among  the  Jews  when  they  were  the 
most  clannish  and  bigoted.  That  great  doctrine,  peculiar  to 
Christianity— Justification  bt  Faith— was  expounded 
most  thoroughly,  and  advocated  most  heartily  by  a  man 
who  had  been  a  life-long  Pharisee  I 

How  could  all  this  be,  on  the  principle  that  like  begets 
like  ?  How  could  such  lofty  ideas  spring  up  from  ths  low 
level  of  Polytheism,  Idolatry,  Carnality,  Bigotry  and  Self- 
righteousness  ?  The  phenomenon  has  no  parallel  in  his- 
tory. Mahomet  borrowed  his  best  ** revelations**  from  the 
Bible.  Buddha  was  only  the  apex  of  the  mountain  of  co- 
temporaneous  sentiment.  But  the  leading  doctrines  of 
Scripture  were,  at  the  time  of  their  first  announcement, 
above,  ahead  of,  different  from,  and  uncongenial  to,  the 
people  through  whom  they  were  given.  The  most  rational 
explanation  of  this  anomaly  is  found  in  the  words  of  the 
Apostle  :  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  man- 
ners, spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets  " 
(Heb.  i.  1). 

10.  I  have  concluded  long  ago  that  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible  are  reasonable  and  practicable,  if  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  ihey  mmt  be  caricatured  before  tJtjey  can  be  attacked. 
The  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  not  the  monstrosities  they 
are  declared  to  be  by  Infidels.  Let  me  make  a  few  specifi 
cations. 

It  is  not  meant  by  the  doctrine  of  Total  Depravity  that 
unregenerate  men  have  no  conscience  ;  or  that  they  do  not 
admire  virtue  ;  or  that  they  are  incapable  of  noble  actions; 
or  that  they  are  as  corrupt  as  they  can  possibly  be.  By  it 
is  only  meant  that  man  is  by  nature  alienated  from  God ; 
that  that  alienation  tends  to  increase  ;  and  that  there  is  no 
recuperative  power  in  the  soul  independently  of  Divine  aid 
(Hodge's  Outlines  of  Theology,  p.  251).  Now.  is  it  not 
true  that  human  nature  is  more  disposed  to  evil  than  to 


118 


THB  BUKPHRKT-BENHXTT  DI80UB8IOK. 


( 


good  f  Ib  it  not  true  that  the  majority  of  mankind  Ioyo 
and  indulge  in  sin  f  Is  it  not  true  that  the  average  boy  will 
remember  a  dirty  couplet  much  more  readily  than  a  noble 
•entiment  ?  Does  the  deep  depravity  of  the  natural  heart 
not  reveal  itself  in  a  special  lust  for  defiling  Purity  and  de- 
flouring  Virtue  ?  The  facts  of  daily  life  establish  the  doc- 
trine of  Total  Depravity,  in  its  authorized  sense. 

Eepenianee  is  a  most  reasonable  requirement.  If  a  man 
has  sinned,  «hould  he  not  be  sorry  for  it  ?  Should  he  not 
determine  to  sin  no  more  ?  Should  he  not  confess  his  sin— 
or,  in  the  language  of  Society,  opofo^g*— to  him  whom  he 
has  wronged  ?  Should  he  not  do  his  utmost  to  repair  the 
injuries  of  his  misdeeds  T  You  will  answer.  Yes.  Well, 
that  is  Scriptural  Repentance  (2  Cor.  vii,  10  ;  Prov.  zxviii, 
18  ;  James  v,  16 ;  1  John  i,  9 ,  Luke  xix,  8). 

You  have  repeatedly  sneered  at  Faith,  By  doing  so  you 
attack  the  foundation  of  everything.  The  child,  like  the 
just,  lives  by  Faith.  The  value  of  civil  tribunals  is  only 
proportional  to  Faith  in  testimony.  Withhold  Faith  from 
human  veracity,  and  all  history  is  worthless.  People 
would  not  travel  if  they  did  not  have  Faith  in  engineers, 
conductors,  and  sea>captalns.  The  whole  superstructure  of 
mathematics  is  founded  on  Faith  in  unproved  axioms  and 
postulates.  Science  is  based  on  Faith  in  the  uniformity  of 
natural  laws.  How  can  Faith  be  preposterous  in  Religion, 
when  it  is  indispensable,  practical,  and  scientific  every- 
where else  ? 

The  Faith  expounded  and  inculcated  by  the  New  Testa- 
met,  is  not  the  silly  thing  that  Infidelity  would  make  it. 
It  rests  on  knowledge,  reason,  and  argument  (2  Tim.  i,  13  ; 
1  Peter  iil,  15).  It  is  confidence  in  the  Being,  Veracity,  and 
Goodness  of  God  (Heb  xi,  6 ;  Rom.  iv,  3).  It  is  a  firm 
reliance  on  his  Wisdom  and  Love  (Rom.  viii,  28).  It  in- 
cludes in  its  character  and  manifestations  all  the  duties  and 
privileges  of  life:  ** Faith  without  works  is  dead"  (James 
ii.  90X    "Add  ttiyour  faith  virtue  ;  and  to  virtue,  knowl- 


IBB  BUKFHBSY-BBNNETT  DISCU88IOV.  418 

edge ;  and  to  knowledge,  temperance ;  and  to  temperance 
patience ;  and  to  patience,  godliness ;  and  to  godliness 
brotherly  kindness  ;  and  to  brotherly  kindness,  charity  "  (2 
Peter  i,  4-10).     "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments  " 
(John  XIV,  15).    Thus,  we  find  on  examining  the  New  Tes- 
tament  that  Faith  is  indeed  a  "  reasonable  service  "  (Rom. 
xii.  1). 

Belief  in  a  personal  DeoU  is  not  absurd.     Absurd  uses 
have  doubtless  been  made  of  it.    But  the  existence  of  evil 
spirits  is  made  highly  probable  by  experience  and  observa- 
tiOD.    Wicked  thoughts  often  spring  up  in  our  minds  inde- 
pendently of  our  volitions  and  excogitations.     And  they 
come  at  times  when  we  least  invite  or  desire  them.    They 
cannot  come  from  God  ;  for  nothing  but  good  can  proceed 
from  him.    Nor  are  they  the  fruit  of  our  own  thinking  • 
for  they  often  come  so  unexpectedly  that  they  surprise  and 
shock  us.    They  Mt  forced  upon  us.    It  is  not  irrational  to 
suppose  that  those  evil  thoughts  are  the  suggestions  of  a 
personal  tempter,  coming,  in  some  undiscovered  way  in 
contact  with  our  minds.    We  know  that  the  nearness'  of 
some  persons  occasionally  affects  our  minds  in  a  peculiar 
way,  before  we  are  aware  of  their  presence.    Why  may  the 
proximity  of  Satan  not  act  on  our  thoughts  in  a  similar 
manner,  operating  both  as  a  suggesting  and  catalytic  force  f 

How  IS  It  that  you  frown  so  indignantly  over  the  notion 
of  a  personal  Devil,  while  you  can  bestow  such  pretty 
smiles  on  Spiritualism  ? 

The  everlasting  misery  of  the  wicked  is  a  doctrine  you  affect 
to  abhor.  In  order  that  you  may  afchor  it  the  more,  you 
deform  it.  Such  words  as  *»  seething."  "  roasting  "  ''  fry. 
ing  "  belong  exclusively  to  the  Infidel's  vocabulary  They 
are  not  lound  in  the  Bible,  in  connection  with  this  subject 
It  would  be  no  more  than  just  for  you  to  confine  yourself 
to  the  language  and  ideas  of  the  Scriptures  when  you  speak' 
of  it.  ''       *^ 

Thif  matter  ia  too  vaat  to  be  dificufised  hew.    aofflceitto 


iU 


VSm  BUMPHBET-BEmrXTT  DI80X7MIOS. 


i 


mj  that  Kature  and  the  Bible  agree  in  regard  to  it  Society 
never  forgives  where  there  is  sin  and  no  penitence.  End- 
less punishment  is  often  the  penalty  of  violating  physical 
law.  We  see  continually  that  it  is  the  tendency  of  a  bad 
character  to  solidify  and  become  permanent  This  fact 
alone  places  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  on  the  ba- 
sis of  probability.  Where  there  is  continued  sin  there  must 
be  continued  wretchedness.  Observation  teaches  us  fur- 
ther that  there  is  no  efficacy  in  mere  svffering  to  regenerate 
the  sufferer.  There  will  be  nothing  in  the  inner  character 
of  the  wicked,  and  there  will  be  still  less  in  iheir  surroucd- 
ings,  to  inspire  a  hope  that  they  will  ever  become  good, 
and  consequently,  happy.  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this 
subject  let  me  refer  you  to  the  iizth  chapter  of  my  little 
work  on  "  Hell  and  Damnation/^ 

You  will  scarcely  deny  that  such  Scriptural  requirements 
as  Humility,  Patience,  Contentment.  Industry,  Frugality, 
Benevolence,  Charity,  Forgiveness,  Forbearance,  Peace- 
ableness.  Gentleness,  in  short,  the  precepts  of  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  Romans,  are  all  well  and  good. 

I  have  enumerated  some  considerations  which,  to  my 
mind,  show  that  the  Bible  is  of  superhuman  origin.  If  you 
take  these  considerations  separately,  you  may  be  able  to 
dispose  of  them  on  some  other  theory  ;  but  when  you  unite 
them,  they  become  a  ten-stranded  cable  that  cannot  be 
broken.  When  I  take  up  the  Bible  and  find  that  it  is  tract- 
able ;  that  it  is  as  simple  as  Wisdom  ;  that  it  is  a  marvel  of 
candor ;  that  it  is  strangely  incurious  ;  that  it  is  absolutely 
and  permanently  exhaustive  as  a  code  of  morals  ;  that  it  is 
of  immense  thoughtfulness  and  suggestivcness ;  that  it 
subordinates  everythiog  to  the  one  idea  of  Ckid ;  that  it  is 
open  to  the  same  objections  and  defensible  by  the  same  ar- 
guments as  Nature  ;  that  ito  characteristic  doctrines  were 
In  advance  of,  and  uncongenial  to  the  times  when  they  were 
first  proclaimed ;  and  that  its  teachings,  when  correctly 
apprehended,  correspond  to  tl|e  realities  of  lite  and  the  die 


TSM  BI«FHBIT-BEHHJETT  UnOITSfllOir.  4]5 

titea  of  reaaon—when  I  ponder  over  this  nexue  of  facts  I 
cannot  but  conclude  that  the  Bible  is  superhuman,  and  con- 
sequently Divine. 

I  do  not  think  that  I  am  given  to  visionariness,  mysti- 
€ism,  or  transcendentalism.    I  can  hardly  bear  such  things 
as  Dr.  Cummings'  writings.    But  I  am  nevertheless  satis- 
fled  that  the    Old  Testament  contains  such  a  thing  as 
Proplu^,  that  is,  definite  predictions  of  future  events,  given 
prior  to  any  foreshadowings  of  their  character.    I  refer 
only  to  such  predictions  as  stand  fulfilled  in  our  presence 
to-day,  namely,  the  destinies  of  certain  cities,  governments, 
and  nations.    When  this  argument  is  examined  critically, 
minutely  and  cumulatively,  it  will  be  found  overwhelming 
and  invincible.    I  cannot  too  highly  recommend  to  you 
Keith  s  great  work  on  thi.  subject    It  is  even  a  demonstra- 
Uon.    But  the  reality  of  Prophecy  involves  the  actuality  of 
Revelation.  '' 

The  character  of  the  Apostles  will  bear  the  closest  scm- 
tiny.    They  were  sensible,  unsophisticated  men,  coming 
neither  from  the  murky  miasma  of  degraded  ignorance  on 
the  one  hand,  nor  from  the  mystic  haze  of  scholasticism  on 
the  other.     They  were  in  the  prime  of  manhood  when 
called  to  be  disciples.    They  could  read  and  write.    They 
were  familiar  with  the  Scriptures.    Whilst  they  were  docile 
they  were  not  credulous.    Thomas  would  not  believe  in  the 
Resurrection  of  Christ  until  he  had  had  the  evidence  of 
sight  and  touch.     They  went  forth  to  preach  only  that 
which  they  had  seen  and  heard.    They  warned  the  churches 
against   credulity,    admonishing  them  to  try  the  spirits 
whether  they  were  of  God.    They  were  certainly  sincere 
and  conscientious,  for  they  yielded  up  their  lives  rather 
than  their  convictions.    They  consecrated  their  time  and 
energies  to  proclaim  a  risen  Lord.    Their  ministry  was  an 
amazing  success.    And  their  success  was  not  owing  to  the 
emoluments  they  oflfered.  as  in  the  case  of  Julian;  or  to  the 
•word  they  wielded,  as  in  the  case  of  Mahomet ;  or  to  the 


ittt 


wanmnwr^wanxwn  DtscussKm. 


pieftii^  of  a  noble  anoMtTy,  ■«  la  the  cases  of  Buddha  and 
Confucias  ;  but  to  the  simple  story  of  a  Crucified  Christ. 
They  would  not  have  undertaken  such  a  work  if  they  had 
not  themselves  believed,  clear  down  iu  the  deeper  depths  of 
their  souls,  the  message  they  had  to  deliver ;  and  they  could 
not  have  succeeded,  under  the  existing  circumstances,  if  God 
had  not  been  with  them.  The  words  of  Robert  Dale  Owen 
will  apply  to  their  case  :  '*  The  longer  I  live,  the  more  I  set- 
tle down  to  the  conviction  that  (he  one  Great  Mibaclb  of 
history  is,  that  a  system  of  ethics  so  far  in  advance  as  was 
the  Ohiistian  system,  not  only  of  the  semi-barbarism  of 
Jewish  life  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  but  what  we  term 
the  civilisation  of  our  own  day»  should  have  taken  root,  and 
lived,  and  spread,  where  every  opinion  seemed  adverse,  and 
every  influence  hostile  *'  (Greeley's  Recollections  of  a  Busy 
Life,  p.  582). 

Perhaps  you  will  allow  a  word  of  personal  experience. 
It  will  at  least  show  that  the  Bible  does  not  strike  every- 
body who  studies  it  in  the  same  way  that  it  does  you.  The 
more  I  acquaint  myself  with  it,  the  more  am  I  astonished 
at  its  contents.  It  is  a  perennial  fountain  to  my  soul.  I 
rise  from  it  ready  to  say,  like  Jacob  at  Bethel,  *'How 
dreadful  is  this  place!  this  is  none  other  but  the  house  of 
God,  and  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven.'*  I  find  in  it  a  feast 
both  for  the  intellect  and  for  tho  heart.  It  is  as  full  of 
wisdom  as  a  father's  counsel,  and  as  full  of  affection  as  a 
mother's  bosom. 

**How  preoioufl  Is  the  Book  divine. 
By  inspiration  siveni 
Bright  as  a  lamp  Its  doctrines  shine* 
To  Kulde  our  souls  to  heaven." 

There  are  many  masterly  treatises  on  this  subject  Ko 
Infidel  is  eanntteni,  not  to  say  just,  until  he  has  given  them 
a  thorough  examination.  In  addition  to  the  works  men* 
Honed  already,  hero  and  there,  I  will  specify  Butler's  "An^ 


WB  HUMPHBET-BINKETT  DiSCUBBIOK.  #17 

•logy";  Paley»s,  Chalmers*,  Addison's,  Alexander's,  and 
Barnes'  "Evidences  of  Chrfstianity ";  Lardner's  Works; 
Pascal's  "Thoughts";  Walker's  -  Philosophy  of  the  Plan 

1  t^^k!'?  "L"""^  ^'"^  ^^«'"'  "  Superhuman  Origin  of 
the  Bjble."     These  were  remarkably  clear-headed  men. 

^u    n^I  'r'''"'  '^'  ^"'^^  *°  «^^^y  *^«i^  Writings. 

.'  I  ?r!  ^  ,  '  *^''*^'  ^*^  "'  ^^^^^'^^^^  P«'h«P«  the  tac 
tics  of  the  defenders  have  sometimes  been  injudicious;  but 
the  fortress  has  never  been  taken.  The  cry  has  repeatedly 
gone  up,  -Mem  U!  RazeUr    The  criers  have  become  fir^ 

r^*"'  r^^  *^'''  ''*"''*  '  **"*  ^^^^  ^^^  ^i^'^^l  ^*«  always 
stood.    The  new  armor  and  new  attacks  of  the  enemy  have 

been  promptly  met  by  new  equipments  and  renewed  valor 

Weapons  that  have  served  their  time  are  honorably  laid 

aside.    The  ancient  castles  of  England  are  useless  tOKiay 

except  as  objects  of  curiosity  to  an  occasional  traveler  or 

antiquarian  ;  but  formerly  they  were  the  salvation  of  the 

realm.    Bo  some  of  the  former  arguments  for  Christianity 

have  fallen  into  disuse,  the  implements  of  the  foe  having 

changed.    But  castles  are  changed  only  for  Gibralters. 

The  Gospel  was  never  so  unconquerable  as  it  is  to-day.    It 

is  only  suicide  to  attack  it.     "  God  is  in  the  midst  of  her  • 

she  shall  not  be  moved  :  God  shall  help  her,  and  that  righi 

«arly.    The  heathen  raged  :  the  kingdoms  were  moved  :  he 

uttered  his  voice,  the  earth  melted.    The  Lord  of  hosts  it 

with  us ;  the  God  of  Jacob  is  our  refuge  "  (Ps.  xlvi,  5-7). 

Your  well-wisher,  G.  H.  Huimbby. 


HR.    BEirirBTT. 

Rev.  G.  H.  Humphbey,  Dear  bir:  Miss  Ophelia,  in  Har- 
riet Beecher  Stowe's  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,"  when  brought 
in  contact  with  the  improvidence  and  thriftlessneJs  in  the 
South,  used  often  to  exclaim,  "How  shiftless.  O,  how 
shiftless."    Upon  reading  over  your  last  letter,  and  perua- 


4m 


TBK  mjMPHKBT-BENNBTT  MflCOWiai^ 


i 


•r 
.  if 

if 

4- 


ing  your  arguments  in  favor  of  the  divinity  of  the  Bible,  I 
am  impelled  in  a  similar  manner  to  exclaim.  Sow  weak,  0^ 
hovsJUmgyf    Is  this  the  beat  that  can  be  done  to  hold  up 
the  heavenly  origin  of  that  Jewish  book  ?    With  all  the 
works  before   you   of   learned   professors,,  bishops,  and 
clergymen  of   all  grades  and  denominations,  who  have 
spent  their  lives  in  the  cause  of  theology  and  ecclesiasti- 
clsm,  and  with  whose  arguments  you  are  famiUar,  are  your 
lucubrations  all  that  can  bo  said  in  favor  of  the  superhuman 
character  of  that  antique  volume  t    I  must  confess  myself 
not  a  little  disappointed.    I  certainly  expected  you  would 
jwesent  some  arguments  that  possessed  weight  and  po- 
tency, but  you  have  not  done  so.    They  show  ingenuity 
and  shrewdness,  but  1  think  there  is  not  a  solid,  convincing 
argument  in  all  you  have  said.    In  giving  your  reasons  why 
we  should  regard  the  Bible  as  superhuman,  that  it  is  supe- 
rior to  human  effort  and  ability  in  a  single  particular,  the 
question  arises,  upon  reading  your  defense  of  the  book, 
can  it  be  possible  that  Mr.  Humphrey  has  succeeded  in 
convincing  himself  ?  Have  you  assuredly  found  proofs  thai 
that  melange  of   legends,  big  stories,   narratives,  tales,, 
accounts  of  wars,  rapine,  and  murder,  poems,  wild  songs» 
incantations,  collected   maxims   and  proverbs,  amorous- 
ness,  crudity,   obscenity,   and  vulgarity,    is  something 
higher,  purer,  and  grander  than  man  has  been  able  to 
produce  T    I  cannot  believe  that  you  have,  and  I  am  half 
inclined  to  think  that  even  you  need  fuller  proofs  of  the 
workmanship  of  the  Ood  of  the  Universe  in  that  promiscu- 
ous volume.    I  cannot  think  you  find  in  it  such  evidencea 
of  divinity  as  to  entirely  satisfy  your  own  mind.  There  is  n 
question,  too,  whether  you  are  fully  sincere  in  your  alle- 
giance to  it.  It  seems  to  me  you  have  too  much  intelligence 
to  llJmly  believe  that  man  has  not  been  able  to  produce 
such  a  book,  and  that  God  must  needs  descend  from  heaven 
and  write   it,  superintend  its  countless   transcriptions,  its 
changev,  iU  additions,  its  translations,  its  printing,  its  bind- 


THE  HUHPHBEY-BENKSTT  DISCUSSIOK.  419 

ing,  and  all  the  rest  of  it.  No,  I  believe  you  comprehend 
that  everything  that  has  ever  been  done  towards  that  com- 
pilation  has  been  the  work  of  human  hands  and  human 
minds-and  minds,  too,  of  not  an  extraordinary  and  ex- 
alted  character. 

Before  examining  your  cable  of  ten  strands  or  divisions,  I 
will  briefly  notice  some  of  your  other  points.     You  are 
yet  hardly  able  to  get  over  the  exhibit  of  your  brethren  of 
the  cloth.    Well,  perhaps  it  was  a  little  rough  and  a  little 
unkind  to  show  them  up  in  that  wholesale  manner,  but 
while  you  were  striving  so  hard  to  establish  that  Infi- 
delttyiscomUUnt  with  immorality,  and  worked  so  laboriously 
to  show  that  certain  unbelievers  were  sensual,  I  deemed  it 
quite  in  order  to  enquire  whether  Christianity  is  not  also 
consistent  with   immorality,  and   whether   many  of  its 
brightest  teachers  have  not  shown  special  fondness  for  that 
which  is  regarded  as  low  and  sensual.    It  seemed  proper  to 
enquire  whether  the  Christian  religion  keeps  all  its  adto- 
cates  strictly  in  the  paths  of  purity  and  self-denial.    It  may 
perhaps  be  unpleasant  to  find  that  the  followers  of  Jesus 
who  have  a  divine  religion  to  aid  them,  have  been  much 
more  inclined  to  stray  into  by  and  forbidden  paths  of  sin 
than  unbelievers  are  who  lay  no  claim  to  guidance  from  on 
high.    L mentioned  only  such  cases  as  were  at  hand  and 
hardly  thought  you  would  complain  because  I  did  not  make 
out  a  fuller  report,  but  let  me  assure  you  the  subject  is  not 
exhausted.    I  gave  not  one  case  in  twenty  of  clerical  sin- 
fulness that  has  come  to  the  light,  and  probably  not  one 
case  in  twenty  is  ever  suffered  to  come  to  the  eyes  of  the 
public.    I  promised  you  that  for  every  case  of  a  prominent 
Freethinker  whom  you  could  show  had  led  an  immoral  or 
sensual  life.  I  would  point  out  twenty  or  fifty  shepherds  of 
tbe  flock  who  had  despoiled  the  lambs  of  their  folds,  and 
have  been  more  governed  by  the  influence  of  fleshly  *lusts 
than  the  spirit  of  heavenly  purity.    I  still  adhere  to  that 
promise. 


r^t 


I  liafdif  ejqMcted  yoa  would  endeaTor  to  Justify  the  con- 
duct of  lecherous  clergymen  bj  the  apostles.     If  the 
clergy  are  better  now  than  when  Jesus  was  upon  earth,  be 
must  have  gathered  a  gay  and  festire  set  around  him.    1' 
think  I  never  before  heard  Judas  cited  as  an  excuse  for  the 
frailties  of  modern  divines.    I  had  been  more  inclined  td 
suppose  that  he  was  one  of  the  actors  in  the  great  scliemt 
of  salvation  that  had  been  devised  from  the  beginning  of 
eternity.    That  in  the  foreknowledge  of  Ck>d.  the  necessai^^^ 
work  of  Judas  was  laid  out  and  apportioned  to  him,  ani 
that  he  helped  in  acting  his  part  to  make  the  salvation  ol* 
one  in  a  hundred  of  the  human  race  a  matter  of  possP 
Mlity.    Was  not  the  betrayal  of  Christ  a  necessary  link  Ivi^ 
the  chain  of  the  divine  plan  of  salvation  ?    Did  he  nof 
have  to  be  betrayed  to  the  authorities  before  he  could  ^e 
arrested,  tried  and  put  to  death,  and  thus  be  made  an  atone*; 
ment  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  or  rather  one  hundredth 
part  of  it  f     Credit  Judas,  then,  with  having  faithfully 
acted  his  part  in  the  grand  divine  drama  and  not  constitute 
him  a  scapegoat  for  the  filthy  sins  of  the  modem  clergy. 

Tou  must  be  '*  hard  up  **  for  arguments  to  bring  in  the 
lectures  that  have  been  delivered  before  tlie  Liberal  Clubs. 
They  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  questions  we 
have  under  discussion,  i  will  use  no  more  space  than  to 
say  that  nothing  immoral  has  been  rendered  before  either 
Club|  and  that  the  Herald  did  not  comprehend  the  lecture 
it  undertook  to  criticise,  was  clearly  shown*  in  the  Oraphio 
on  the  following  day.  It  is  a  part  of  the  constitutions  of 
the  Liberal  Clubs  of  this  city  that  they  do  not  endorse  and 
do  not  hold  themselves  responsible  for  any  sentiments  that 
may  be  uttered  on  their  platforms.  They  simply  allow  free 
speech.  Any  lecturer  may  avow  what  he  believes  to  be 
right,  subject  to  the  free  discussion  of  the  members  which 
follows.  Is  this  system  so  shocking  to  you  that  you  fetl 
impelled  to  specially  denounce  it  ? 

You  introduce  Wales  and  Scotland  with  their  high  degree 


THE  mmPBRBT-BBNllBTT  DISCUSMON.  :|2l 

Of  morality  and  inteUigence.  where  the  Bible  is  most  read 
and  best  understood,  as  an  evidence  of  its  divine  character 

but'^hrfrt"  '^l^''^'  ^'^^"^"^^  in  those  countries; 
but  the  facts  brought  out  in  the  recent  Bradlaugh-Besan; 
tna    in  London   and  which  too  are  weU-known  truths, 
s^e  that  m  one  of  your  Bible  countries  at  least,  Scotland 
there  are  more  illegitimate  children  than  in  any  other 
portion  of  Great  Britain,  and  is  exceeded  by  no  other  coun. 
try  of  Europe.      In  the  use  of  ardent  spirits,  in  propor- 
tion to  population,  it  has  long  been  known   that  Scot- 
land  leads  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.    Do  yx)u  mean, 
then,  that  those  come  from  Bible  influences?    Let  me 
call  your  attention  to  a  general  truth  connected  with  this 
question.    The  Bible  is  distinctively  a  book  of  the  Protest- 
ants.      Catholics  attach  but  little  importance  to  it.  and 
read  it  very  little,  while  their  opponents,  the  Protestants, 
look  upon  It  as  an  emanation  from  heaven,  read  it  with  the 
greatest  reverence,  and  absolutely  make  a  fetish  of  it  as 
really  as  any  old  f  etish-worshipers  ever  did  of  their  crude 
idols.   Well,  in  Protestant  countries  there  are  nearly  double 
the  number  of  children  born  out  of  wedlock  that  are  bora 
m  Catholic  countries.    It  is  possible  the  examples  of  Abra- 
ham, Jacob,  David.  Solomon  &  Co.,  may  have  their  effects. 
So  much  for  Bible  influences  I 

You  represent  me  unfairly;  you  say  I  intimate  that  the 
Bible  18  of  no  value  because  it  is  old.    I  used  no  such  argu- 
ment    I  have  never  disapproved  of  the  Bible  on  account 
of  Its  age.    I  will  rather  concede  that  its  antiquity  entitles 
It  to  some  consideration.     1  have  a  natural  veneration  for 
everything  that  has  great  age.    The  Universe  is  old,  truth 
Is  old,  matter  and  force  have  existed  for  a  very  long  time— 
I  have  great  respect  for  them,  but  because  a  book  is  old,  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  that  God  wrote  it.    Men  were 
able  to  write  thousands  of  years  ago,  and  God  was  under  no 
necessity  to  write  their  books  for  them.    Unfortunately, 
the  Bible  is  not  so  old  as  many  suppose.    There  is  not  m 


.1 

I 


:    11 

I 


TUX  HUUPHBSY-BENNETT  Z^IBOUMIOir. 

particle  of  proof  that  any  part  of  it  (save,  perliaps,  tlie 
Gentile  Book  of  Job)  had  an  existence  seyen  centuries 
before  the  Christian  era.  In  the  reign  of  Josiah  (630 
B.  a)  Hilkiah  the  priest  claimed  to  have  found  the  Book  of 
the  Law  in  the  temple,  and  it  was  read  before  the  king.  It 
produced  great  consternation,  and  it  was  very  evident  that 
they  had  never  heard  it  before.  During  the  Jewish  cap- 
tivity it  is  said  that  their  sacred  writings  were  lost,  and 
that  Esdras  and  his  scribes  reproduced  them.  Tliis  was 
about  five  centuries  &  c.  Others  strenuously  claim  that 
much  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not  written  until  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees  (250  b.  c.)  There  are  in  several  of  the 
books  idioms  and  expressions  which  show  that  they 
were  written  at  a  comparatively  modern  date.  One  thing 
is  painfully  certain — the  2>y  vihom  written^  and  vBihsn  written^ 
of  those  books  are  very  little  known 

You  donH  seem  to  like  the  Bible  picture  I  gave  you  of 
Jehovah.  Tou  say  they  are  mostly  figurative  expressions 
designed  to  set  forth  the  Lord's  great  abhorrence  of  sin.  I 
call  that  a  priestly  dodge,  and  It  fails  entirely  to  meet  the 
case.  These  positive  assertions  that  Ood  has  horns  in  his 
hands,  that  smoke  comes  out  of  his  nostrils,  and  a  sword 
out  of  his  mouth  ;  that  he  roars  and  shouts  like  a  drunken 
man;  that  his  fury  is  poured  out  like  fire;  th»t  he  throws 
rocks  from  heaven  upon  his  children;  that  he  gtts  angry 
every  day  ;  that  he  swears  ;^that  he  is  full  of  indignation  ; 
that  he  is  stirred  with  jealousy;  that  he  delights  in  war  and 
bloodshed ;  that  his  arrows  are  drunken  with  blood  ; 
that  he  whets  his  glittering  sword,  and  does  a  great  deal 
more  in  the  same  line,  seem  hardly  the  happiest  method  of 
representing  the  character  of  a  being  who  is  all  love,  kind- 
ness, sympathy  and  mercy  t  The  picture  is  brutal  and 
repulsive.  I  could  not  love  a  being  answering  that  descrip- 
tion. 

Tou  appear  desirous  to  dismiss  the  subject  of  the  Bible 
contradictions  which  I  mentioned,  by  saying  they  are  *'a 


TBM  mrXPHBET-BENNBTT  DISCUSSION. 


W 


Jumble  **  and  unworthy  of  refutation.    If  a  defense  of  that 
kind  explains  the  hundreds  of  self-contradictions  whi«h 
the  Bible  contains,  the  most  damning  proof  on  any  subject 
<jan  be  rebutted.    If  a  man  is  arraigjied  for  murder,  and 
hundreds  of  witnesses  swear  that  they  saw  him  do  the 
deed,  he  would  only  need  to  eay,  with  a  sanctimonious 
drawl,  "  Such  evidence  is  a  mere  jumble,  and  is  unworthy 
of  a  serious  refutation  "—and  he  would  be  acquitted.    It 
has  been  noticed  that  in  several  instances  you  have  adopted 
4.he  tactics  of  the  small  boy  who,  when  reading,  could  not 
pronounce  the  hard  words,  and  so  skipped  them  whenever 
he  met  them.    And,  like  him,  you  have  found  it  conven- 
lent  to  "  skip  "  several  difficult  words.  Among  other  things 
I  stated  emphatically  that  Christianity  is  a  system  <rf  relig- 
ion made  up  of  the  rites,  oeremonies  and  dogmas  of  pagan 
systems  that  existed  before  it.   I  charged  that  there  is  noth- 
ing new  nor  original  in  the  Christian  religion,  and  called 
4ipon  you  to  disprove  it  if  it  is  not  so.    I  charged  you  with 
upholding  a  borrowed  system  of  myths  and  superstitions 
purloined  from  the  old  pagan  religions  that  had  existed  at 
an  earlier  date.    I«verxed  that  the  world  had  believed  in 
some  forty  saviors,  mostly  born  of  virgins,  and  a  large  por- 
4ion  of  whom  had  been  cvucified  for  the  salvation  of  the 
world.    These  you  very  prudently  skipped  over  without 
a  word.    Your  style  of  defense  may  explain,  to  your  own 
eatisfaction,  why  Qod  in  some  places  is  said  to  have  beea 
seen  and  talked  with  face  to  face,  that  Moses,  Aaron, 
l^adab,  Abihu,  and  seventy  elders  saw  the  God  of  Israel, 
and  in  other  places  that  no  man  had  seen  him  at  any 
time,  or  could  see  him  and  live;  why  in  one  place  it 
is  said  that  God  moved  David  to  number  the  people  of 
Israel,  and  in  another  place  that  it  was  Satan  who  caused 
him  to  number  them;  why  the  Important  matter  of  Christ's 
bodily  ascension  into  heaven  is  stated  in  three  or  four  dif- 
ferent ways— to  wit !  in  Acts,  that  he  asoended  irom  Mount 
Olivet ;  in  Luke,  that  it  was  from  Bethany;  and,  in  Mark, 


nn  BmmmsT-BBNNXTT  dibcubbkiii. 

that  it  was  from  a  room  in  which  the  eleTen  sat  at  meat» 
while  Matthew  and  John  did  not  deem  the  affair  of 
Bttfficieiit  moment  to  mention  it  at  all— and  himdreds  of 
other  contradictions  positire  and  palpable — but  to  me  it 
is  no  explanation  at  all.  Nor  can  you,  or  any  other  the- 
ologian, explain  these  things  to  the  satisfaction  of  honest, 
sensible  people.  You  may  call  a  selection  of  quotations 
lilie  these  a  '^Jumble  *^~and  that  term  is  correct  enough 
when  applied  to  the  book  as  a  whole— but  it  does  not  sat- 
isfactorily reconcile  the  contradictions. 

I  see  that,  as  a  kind  of  excuse  for  the  blunders  of  your 
6od  and  his  scribes,  you  undertake  to  show  that  contradic- 
tions may  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Thomas  Paine  t  Tou 
present  one  or  two  that  appear  to  be  sueh,  but  the  others 
l»ear  no  resem^lanee  thereto.  But  what  of  it  allt  Thomas 
Paine  was  only  a  man.  He  claimed  nothing  more.  He 
wrote  his  own  thoughts,  and  made  no  pretensions  to  guid- 
ance from  OB  high.  No  one  claims  that  his  works  are 
divine,  unless  truth  adds  divinity  to  a  man's  writings.  If 
his  productions  were  full  of  contradictions,  it  would  be  no 
excuse  for  tlie  conflicting  statements  and  blunders  made  by 
your  Ck>d.  A  single  self-contradiction  or  imperfection  in  a 
work  which  is  claimed  to  be  divine  completely  overthrows 
its  claims  to  divinity.  God  must  be  too  perfect  to  make 
mistakes  or  to  contradict  himself. 

As  a  specimen  of  your  fairness  in  showing  up  Paine's 
self-contradictions,  you  quote  these  two  passages  from  his 
^*  Age  of  Reason":  "I  have  furnished  myself  with  aBible/^ 
and,  "I  keep  no  Bible."  Now,  you  must  know  that  the 
latter  passage  is  found  in  the  first  part  of  the  "Age  of  Rea- 
son," which  was  written  when  he  had  no  Bible  at  hand» 
and  the  other  passage  is  in  the  second  part,  written  after  ho 
had  provided  himself  with  a  copy.  Is  there  the  slightest 
tontradietioB  in  a  person^s  saying,  '*  I  keep  no  Bible,"  when 
he  liad  none,  and,  '*  I  have  furnished  myself  with  a  Bible,  ** 
alter  he  had  procured  onet    You  liavtt  thus  reversed  ths 


order  of  the  quotations,  putting  the  one  first  written  when  he 
had  a  Bible,  and  setting  the  one  from  the  first  part,  when  he 
had  not  yet  obtained  one  to  contradict  it  I  la  that  a  strictly 
honest  presentation  of  Palne's  words?  Is  it  indeed  the  best 
excuse  you  have  to  offer  for  the  positive  and  oft  recurrinir 
contradictions  of  your  Bible  God,  or  his  writers?  Is  God 
not  better  than  Paine  ?  Cannot  you  afford  to  be  just  to- 
ward  Thomas  Paine?  * 

In  your  eleventh  letter  you  attempt  to  prove  the  truth  of 
the  absurd  flood  story,  that  the  ocean  was  raised  to  the 
tops  of  the  highest  mountains,  by  showing  that  some  sea- 
shells  and  marine  deposits  have  been  found  on  elevated 
portions   of   the  earth    This   does   not   prove  that  the 
surface   of  the  ocean  was  once  raised  up  to  where  the 
tops  of  the  mountains  now  are.    Had  this  been  the  case  the 
sea  sheUs  and  other  marine  deposits  would  not  have  been 
taken  up  there,  because  shells  do  not  float  on  the  surface 
of  the  water;  but  it  is  another  proof  that  the  mountains  of 
the  earth,  sometime  in  the  long  ages  of  the  past,  have  been 
raised  up  from  the  bed  of  the  ocean,  and  of  course  taken 
marine  debris  along  with  them.    Sir  Charles  Lyell  thus 
ppeaks  of  the  remains  of  ancient  corals  which  he  found  at 
the  falls  of  the  Ohio,  near  Louisville:  "Although  the  water 
was  not  at  its  lowest,  I  saw  a  grand  display  of  what  may  be 
termed  an  ancient  coral  reef  formed  by  zoophytes  which 
flourished  in  a  sea  of  earlier  date  than  the  carboniferous 
period.    The  Alps  and  their  related  mountains,  and  even 
the  Himalayas,  were  not  yet  born,  for  they  have  on  their 
high  summits  deep  sea  beds  of  the  cretaceous  and  even  of 
later  dales"  (Story  of  Earth  and  Man,  p.  89).    Your  scien- 
ti»i$  who  wrote  the  Bible  knew  nothing  of  this  fact,  nor  • 
that  this  continent  presents  indisputable  proofs  that'uis 
older  than  the  Himalayas  of  Asia,  and  that  the  higiiest 
mountains  of  the  earth  have  been  forced  up  from  the  sea 
level.    But  I  would  give  more  for  the  testimony  of  one 
such  man  as  LyeU  than  for  the  word  of  the  combined  forty 


126 


CTB  HUMPHBST-BBNNBTT  DiaOUSffiOV. 


or  fifty  writers  who  got  up  your  wonderful  Bible,  with  all 
the  divine  aid  they  bad  to  help  them,  included. 

You  attempt  to  prove,  too,  that  excavations  at  Nineveh 
confirm  Biblical  archaeology.  They  do  nothing  of  the  kind; 
but  they  do  prove  that  the  Jews,  during  their  captivity, 
borrowed  from  the  Babylonians  and  Ninevites  their  views 
of  cosmogony  and  incorporated  them  into  their  Bible 
stories  which  were  written  after  their  return  to  their  own 

country. 

Let  me  next  examine  your  ten-stranded  cable  in  favor  of 
the  superhuman  origin  of  the  Bible,  and  which  you  say  can- 
not be  broken.  The  proper  way  to  become  acquainted  with 
any  cable  or  rope  and  with  the  material  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed, is  to  examine  it  closely,  strand  by  strand.  If  the 
individual  strands,  as  you  almost  confess  with  regard  to 
your  cable,  are  weak  or  rotten,  or  are  composed  of  bad 
materials,  it  is  impossible  to  have  a  good  cable,  that  cannot 
be  broken.  It  will  be  little  better  than  a  rope  of  sand,  that 
must  part  at  the  first  heavy  strain  that  is  brought  to  bear 
upon  it.  To  prove  the  Bible  is  superhuman  you  ought  to 
understand  that  it  is  incumbent  on  you  to  show  that  at  least 
portions  of  It  are  above  the  power  of  man  to  produce.  If 
there  is  nothing  in  it  but  what  man  can  write,  it  is  perfectly 
proper  to  relegate  it  to  human  minds  and  not  to  an  unseen, 
unknown  power  outside  of  the  Universe.  Before  it  can  be 
admitted  to  be  divine,  1  repeat,  it  must  be  shown  that  it  ia 
not  in  the  power  of  man  to  produce  it.    This  you  have 

failed  to  do. 

The  first  strand  of  your  cable  is  that  the  Bible  is  Just 
about  the  right  iww.  Who  has  the  authority  to  say  what  is 
the  exact  size  of  divinity  ?  Who  shall  say  it  is  not  larger 
or  that  it  is  not  smaller  than  the  Bible  T  If  a  certain  siie 
must  be  attained  before  a  piece  of  manuscript  can  be  divine, 
how  Is  it  with  the  parts  that  were  written  first,  the  Penta- 
teuch, which  is  popularly  supposed  to  be  the  oldest  book 
In  the  collection— though  it  is  not  f    If  size  la  an  essential 


THB  HUMPHBEY-BENNETT  MSCUflfllON.  437 

lo  divinity,  the  first  books  could  not  have  been  divine 
because  of  this  defect.    If  the  New  Testament  is  essential 
in  making  up  the  right  size,  the  Old  Testament  could  not 
have  been  divine  without  it.    If  the  book  is  just  the  right 
Bize  to  be  divine,  it  is  perhaps  fortunate  that  several  books 
were  lost,  among  whicA  may  be  named  *'The  Wars  of 
Jehovah,"  **  Joshua's  Division  of  the  Holy  Land  "  -  Solo- 
mon's  Natural  History,"  -  The  Annals  of  Solomo'n,"  -  The 
Annals  of  Nathan,"  "The  Annals  of  Gad,"  " The  Life  of 
Solomon  by  Ahijah,"  '«The  Life  of  Solomon  by  Iddo  " 
••  The  Acts  of  Rehoboam."  "  The  Chronicles  of  Judah  «r 
Israel,"  "The  Book  of  Jashar,"  •«  The  Life  of  Hezekiah," 
'*The  Life  of  Manasseh,"  "The  Prophecy  of  Ahijah  " 
^•The  Book  of  Shemaiah,"  "The  Sayings  of  Hosea,"  etci. 
•etc. ;  if  these  had  all  been  preserved  they  would  doubtless 
have  increased  the  size  to  such  an  extent  as  to  destroy  its 
divinity.    What  if  the  councils  which  decided  which  books 
ehould  constitute  the  sacred  canon  had  voted  in  or  voted 
out  a  few  more,  would  not  the  effect  upon  the  divinity  of 
the  whole  been  most  disastrous  T    How  came  you  to  know 
Just  how  much  it  takes  to  equal  divinity  ?    How  can  you 
decide  that,  inasmuch  as  Deity  is  infinite,  that  his  book 
also    must   not   be   infinite,  and   therefore    the   Hindoo 
Scriptures,  which  are  so  volummous  as  to  be  almost  infinite, 
are  not  more  divine  than  the  Jewish  Scriptures  ?   Your  first 
strand  wUl  certainly  not  bear  much  of  a  strain.      - 

Tour  second  strand  is  simpUcUy,  Now,  I  am  disposed  to 
concede  the  simplicity  of  any  one  who  would  present  such 
an  argument  in  favor  of  the  divinity  of  the  Bible,  but  is  it 
any  simpler  than  the  story  of  Blue  Beard,  Cinderella,  the 
Cow  jumping  over  the  Moon,  and  the  whole  catalogue  of 
Mother  Goose's  Nursery  Rhymes  ?  If  simplicity  proves 
the  divinity  of  the  Bible,  may  it  not  be  used  as  a  criterion 
by  which  to  determine  the  divinity  of  these  other  and 
similar  works.  Js  all  that  is  simple  necessarily  divine? 
Bad  yoB  the  Book  of  Daniel  or  the  Book  of  Revelationa  in 


/r 


▼iew  when  yon  were  so  struck  wttli  the  irfmplieity  of 
tlie  Tolume  T  I  hate  known  men  to  spend  almost  a  life* 
time  poring  orer  those  two  hooks,  and  they  knew  as  little 
ahout  their  meaning  at  last  as  they  did  at  first.  If  the 
Bihle  possesses  such  extraordinary  simplicity,  why  Is  it 
that  legions  of  priests,  at  an  expense  of  many  millions  of 
dollars  per  year,  are  necessary  to  explain  its  meaning  to 
the  people  f  and  why  is  it,  if  its  simplicity  is  so  marked, 
that  the  seTeral  branches  of  the  Christian  Church  spend 
generations  in  bitter  contention  orer  its  language?  Finally, 
kow  does  your  admiration  for  its  perfect  simplicity  agree 
with  your  sixth  strand,  where  you  say  "There  nerer  was  a 
man  who  could  place  his  hand  on  it  and  say,  '  I  know  and 
understand  all  it  contains.*  The  most  diligent  student 
doses  his  inTestigaticas  of  it,  feeling,  like  Newton  in  the 
presence  of  the  Uniyerse,  that  he  was  but  a  gatherer  of 
■hells  on  the  shores  of  the  unfathomable  sea.  Men  can 
master  other  books.  It  does  not  require  much  application 
to  comprehend  all  that  Aristotle,  Plato,  Cicero,  or  any 
other  philosopher  eve?  wrote.  Whateyer  proceeds  from 
man  can  be  grasped  and  mastered  by  man.  But  the  Bible 
cannot  be  so  grasped  and  mastered  by  man.  Hence,  it 
must  be  more  than  human.*'  Here  is  a  striking  case  of 
blowing  hot  and  cold  at  the  same  breath.  Your  second 
strand  is  that  the  Bible  is  so  simple  that  it  can  be  easily 
understood— no  •*  pomposity,"  or  " sophomority  "  about  it, 
eyerybody  can  understand  it — hence  it  must  be  diyine;  but 
in  your  sixth  strand  you  say  it  i?  so  complex  and  hidden 
that  no  man  can  understand  it — hence,  it  must  be  diyine. 
These  strands  certainly  will  not  unite  in  making  a  strong 
cable.  I  must  confess  that  I  do  not  think  much  of  either 
of  them. 

Tour  third  strand,  candor^  does  not  haye  much  strength. 
The  Bible  has  no  more  candor  than  thousands  of  other 
books  that  n^en  hay^  written.  This  strand  adds  nothing  to 
your  cable. 


Tn  SUMPHBBT-BBHirXTT  DnOUmOBT. 


Your  fourth  strand,  ineurioHiy,  I  can  make  yery  little  of. 
How  you  make  ineuriotity  a  proof  of  diyinity  is  a  puzzler  to 
me.  Was  not  God  a  little  curious  when  he  came  down  in  the 
cool  of  the  day  and  walked  in  the  garden  to  see  what  Adam 
and  Eve  had  been  doing  f  Was  he  not  a  trifle  curious  when  he 
descended  from  heaven  to  see  what  the  Sodomites  had 
done,  and  whether  their  conduct  was  in  keeping  with  the 
cry  that  had  gone  up  to  him  ?  Was  he  not  a  little  curious 
when  he  put  Abraham  to  the  severe  test  of  proving  if  he 
would  put  his  own  child  to  death  and  oflfer  him  as  a  burnt 
offering  ?  Did  he  not  show  commendable  curiosity  on 
many  other  occasions  t  No,  no ;  incuriosity  is  not  a  proof 
of  divinity.    Try  again,  Brother  Humphrey. 

Your  fifth  strand  I  cannot  comprehend  sufllciently  to  get 
iU  full  meaning.  I  believe  you  mean  that  the  Bible  is 
divine  because  God  is  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords. 
I  fall  to  see  the  connection.    This  is  a  very  weak  strand. 

Your  sixth  I  have  quoted  and  found  it  completely  neu- 
tralized by  your  second.  They  utterly  contradict  and  de- 
stroy each  other. 

Your  seventh  strand,  the  close  resemblance  between  the 
BibU  and  nature,  is  decidedly  far-fetched.  The  Bible  beara 
no  more  resemblance  to  nature  than  any  other  book  does. 
In  fact  it  bears  less.  It  tells  many  impossible  stories  that 
are  in  utter  variance  with  every  principle  of  nature.  There 
is  very  little  harmony  between  nature  and  that  queer  old 
book.    No.  7  is  very  weak. 

Your  eighth,  exhav^tiveness^  has  no  more  strength  than 
the  preceding.  With  all  its  exliaustiveness^  what  great  truth, 
what  science,  whatfiel(J^of  knowledge  or  philosophy  has  it 
exhausted  ?  Did  it  exhaust  cosmogony,  astronomy,  geol- 
ogy, chemistry,  archseclogy,  mathematics,  geography,  biol- 
ogy, physiology,  zoology,  the  nature  of  force  and  matter, 
the  character  of  mind  or  intellect,  philology,  meterology, 
pneumatics,  hydrostatics,  and  all  the  numerous  arts  that 
exist  in  the  world  ?    No,  it  exhausts  none  of  these,  and 


430 


THE  HUMPHHET-BBHlWrT  DISOUMIOH. 


acarcely  touches  them.  It  exhausts  nothing  except  It  be 
the  stories  of  wars,  bloodshed  and  the  sexual  relations  of  a 
erode,  semi-barbarous  people.    No.  8  might  as  well  have 

been  omitted. 

Your  ninth,  that  the  Bible  was  far  in  advance  of  the  ages 
in  which  it  was  announced  or  written,  has  little  more 
strength  than  its  fellow  strands.  It  is  impossible  to  see 
that  the  Bible  had  this  peculiarity.  We  have  Just  seen  that 
in  none  of  the  sciences  which  afterward  came  to  be  well 
understood  in  the  world  did  the  Bible  advance  beyond  its 
age  and  time.  You  aim  to  make  a  good  deal  of  MonoiheUm, 
The  Jews,  like  their  brothers,  the  Arabs,  seemed  more 
inclined  to  Monotheism  than  many  of  the  ancient  nations, 
but  whether  this  quality  possesses  much  f^pecial  excellence 
is  a  debatable  question.  If  Monotheism  has  proved  mors 
advantageous  to  the  world  than  Polytheism  or  ^(^theism  it 
is  hardly  yet  ascertained.  There  is  as  much  proof  of  the 
existence  of  a  hundred  gods  as  there  is  of  one,  and  it  is 
hard  to  be  discovered  how  the  belief  in  a  pingle  god  is 
more  conducive  to  virtue  than  the  belief  in  numerous 
gods.  Besides  the  Jews  were  not  confined  to  one  God.  In 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  the  word  translated  Ood—EXo- 
him  is  plural  and  means  Godt,  Further  along  in  the  orig- 
inal Hebrew  we  have  El,  ElrShadai,  Adonai,  Yahveh,  Jah, 
Jehovah  and  others.  The  greater  part  of  these  were  sepa- 
rate characters,  but  the  translators  rendered  them  all  Lord 
«Qd  God— another  exemplification  of  the  dishonesty  which 
the  Scriptures  cover.    No.  9  contains  no  strength. 

Your  tenth  and  last  strand  I  judge  was  thrown  in  for 
••good  count,"  or  as  a  makeweight.  You  wish  to  establish 
the  fact  that  the  Bible  is  the  most  reasonable  Knd  praeticabU 
of  books.  You  could  hardly  set  up  a  more  absurd  claim. 
A  great  portion  of  it  is  opposed  to  reason,  and  its  practica. 
bility  is  of  a  very  thin  quality.  In  this  respect  it  certainly 
does  not  surpass  great  numbers  of  other  books.  Who  goes 
to  the  Bible  when  he  wishes  to  learn  the  dictates  of  reason 


TBB  HUMPHBEY-BENKBTT  DISCUSSIOH. 


481 


and  gidn  practicable  information?  It  Is  only  pious  souls 
who  imagine  that  the  book  is  a  voice  from  the  throne  of 
God  and  go  to  its  pages  for  anything  of  a  practicable  char- 
acter. 

I  have  thus  examined  your  '•  ten-stranded  cable,*'  and  I 
cannot  find  that  the  strands  amount  to  anything  separate  or 
that  they  possess  any  more  strength  when  united.  It  seems 
very  strange  that  you  and  the  Christian  world  should 
depend  upon  such  an  imperfect  cable  to  hold  the  ship  of 
truth  to  her  moorings.  I  must  again  express  my  surprise 
that  you  are  able  to  present  no  stronger  arguments  in  proof 
of  the  divinity  of  the  book  you  so  ardently  revere.  I  can- 
not see  how  you  were  yourself  won  by  such  weak  and  inad- 
equate reasoning.  It  is  strange,  too,  that  the  world  of 
Christendom  is  led  along  year  after  year  and  generation 
after  generation  by  such  deficient  arguments.  Millions, 
like  yourself,  give  their  assent  to  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Bible,  when,  as  now,  if  the  actual  proofs  of  its  divinity 
are  called  for,  they  turn  out  like  the  strands  of  your  cable, 
possessing  neither  tenacity  when  alone,  nor  the  ability  to 
give  strength  to  one  another  when  combined. 

I  think  I  can  give  better  reasons  why  the  Bible  is  not 
divine  than  your  ten  are  in  favor  of  its  divinity.  In  doing 
so  I  may  repeat  some  that  have  already  been  used,  but  will 
arrange  them  in  numerical  order,  similar  to  yours;  and  you 
may,  if  you  please,  call  them  strands  in  the  great  anti-bibli- 
cal cable  which  is  impossible  to  be  broken. 

1.  There  is  no  assertion  from  the  writers  themselves  that 
they  were  directed  or  influenced  by  God. 

2.  It  is  wholly  unknown,  iu  nearly  every  instance,  who 
the  writers  of  the  various  books  were,  or  whether  they 
were  men  of  credibility. 

8.  The  time  is  not  known  when  many  of  the  books  were 
written.  A  discrepancy  of  one  thousand  years,  or  more, 
exists  between  the  time  when  it  is  claimed  that  they  were 
written  and  the  time  when  they  really  were  written. 


MUMPKBar-BlllinRT  DlBOUBIlOlf, 

4  The  matter  contained  in  the  book  is  largely  emde  aad 
tioarse,  and  is  principally  a  mere  narrative  of  events  that 
were  supposed  to  have  occurred  within  the  limits  of  an 
obscure  nation  occupying  an  area,  in  a  hilly  country, 
smaller  than  many  of  the  small  States  in  this  Republio. 

ff.  As  everything  the  Bible  contains  could  have  been 
written  without  aid  from  any  god,  it  is  utter  folly  to 
assume  that  £uch  a  party  had  anything  to  do  with  it.  There 
is  not  a  chapter  nor  a  verse  in  the  whole  compilation  supe- 
rior to  human  ability,  and  it  is  the  height  of  absurdity  to 
accord  to  divinity  that  which  is  wholly  within  the  scope  of 
humanity. 

0.  It  is  largely  historical  in  character,  and  contains  mat- 
ter in  the  narration  of  which  no  divine  aid  would  be  necM* 
aary.  It  presents  no  more  proofs  of  divinity  than  thou- 
turnds  of  histories  and  detailed  descriptions  of  that  with 
which  the  world  has  been  filled. 

7.  The  coarseness  and  indecency  of  large  portions  of  the 
book  repudiate  the  idea  of  ito  being  the  wo^  of  the  tape* 
rior  spirit  of  the  Universe. 

8.  It  is  full  of  errors  and  contradictitinfl,  stating  many 
points  and  incidents  in  language  bearing  two  or  more  con* 
structions. 

9.  It  has  many  errors  in  chronology  and  In  fact,  making 
mistakes  in  some  instances  of  hundreds  of  years. 

10.  The  writers  of  the  book  were  ignorant  of  the  simplest 
truths  of  Nature  which  the  merest  schoolboy  now  clearly 
comprehends,  such  as  the  rotundity  of  the  earth,  the  sun 
being  the  centre  of  the  solar  system,  the  phenomena  of 
rain,  rainbows,  eclipses,  the  recurrence  of  day  and  night, 
the  seasons,  etc. 

11.  It  contains  many  absurd  and  impossible  statements 
which  are  opposed  to  the  system  of  Kature  and  the  laws 
which  govern  the  Universe,  as  the  story  of  creation,  the 
snake  story,  the  story  of  the  Hood,  of  the  parting  of  seas 
and  rivers,  of  Joshua  stopping  the  heavenly  bodies,  of 


HUIIPHBBT*  BUI  A  VIT  DIBOUMIOir. 


* 


Jonah  three  days  in  the  belly  of  a  fish,  of  three  men  being 
thrown  unharmed  into  a  superheated  furnace,  etc.  Its  talk 
about  the  "ends,"  "pillars"  and  "  foundations"  of  the  earth, 
and  of  the  stars  falling  to  the  earth,  is  simply  ridiculous. 

13.  Its  writers  were  unscientific  and  mostly  unlearned 
men  who  were  entirely  ignorant  of  hundreds  of  things  in  sci- 
ence and  general  knowledge  that  are  familiar  in  the  world 
to-day.  The  Bible  writers  had  no  knowledge  imparted  to 
them  beyond  what  had  been  attained  by  the  nations  then 
existing  upon  the  earth. 

13.  It  contains  no  greater  literary  ability,  no  finer  lan- 
guage, no  more  elevated  thought,  no  purer  morals,  than 
are  contained  in  other  writings  and  books  written  as.  early 
or  earlier  and  which  are  not  supposed  to  have  been  written 
by  gods. 

14.  It  imparts  very  crude  ideas  of  Deity,  the  Supreme 
Power  of  the  Universe,  giving  it  the  form  of  man,  with  all 
the  passions,  impulses,  whims,  and  foibles  that  pertain  to 
an  unprogressed,  passionate,  ungorernable  human  being. 
The  description  which  it  gives  of  his  form  and  appearance 
is  revolting  even  to  a  child. 

15.  It  imparts  very  little  practical,  useful  information 
touching  the  affairs  of  life,  and  gives  imperfect  instructioni 
upon  such  subjects  as  man  most  needs  to  know. 

16.  It  is  largely  made  up  of  accounts  of  savage  wars,  car- 
nage, and  bloodshed,  with  plentiful  details  of  marrying, 
concubinage,  of  the  begetting  and  bearing  of  children,  of 
experiments  in  cattle-raising,  rapes,  adulteries,  etc.,  etc., 
disgusting  to  the  refined  mind. 

17.  If  it  was  of  any  value  to  the  people  of  the  earth  at 
the  times  in  which  it  was  written,  and  if  it  was  the  highest 
form  of  literature  and  science  which  the  world  then  pos« 
sessed,  it  has  ceased  to  be  of  any  vital  importance  to  man- 
kind save  as  a  work  of  antiquity,  and  in  this  view  it  is 
worthy  of  preservation  and  respect  but  not  as  a  book 
written  by  God. 


T9B  HUMFHBKr-BIVHKTT  DUCUMIOir, 

18.  The  Bible  tescbes  that  God  made  the  eartb,  and  all 
<he  stars  and  worlds  that  compose  the  Universe  less  than 
«iz  thousand  years  ago,  while  science  teaches  us  with  uner- 
ring truth  that  some  of  the  far  away  suns  and  stars  whose 
light  meets  our  eyes  on  a  clear  night  are  so  far  distant  that 
At  the  Telocity  at  which  light  travels  it  would  require  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  and  even  millions  of  years  for  their 
light  to  reach  our  globe.  Geology  and  its  students  have 
made  it  positive  that  this  earth  has  existed  as  a  globe  for 
millions  of  years,  and  innumerable  proofs  can  be  brought 
to  confirm  it  How  idle  then  to  talk  about  this  world  and 
those  distant  orbs  being  less  than  six  thousand  years  old. 

19.  The  Bible  teaches  that  vegetation  of  all  kinds,  includ- 
ing herbs,  grasses,  shrubbery,  trees,  etc.,  flourished  and 
perfected  their  flowers,  seeds  and  fruits  before  the  sun  came 
Into  existence,  and  before  rain  had  ever  fallen  upon  the 
«arth.  Every  sensible  person  knows  that  this  cannot  be 
true. 

20.  The  Bible  teaches  that  the  first  created  organic  exist- 
ences were  grass,  herbs  and  fruit  trees,  but  geologists  have 
found  imbedded  in  the  primitive  rocks  of  the  earth  fossils 
of  low  forms  of  animal  life  found  only  in  water  which 
existed  on  the  planet.  It  is  established  beyond  a  doubt  that 
the^^',  the  moUusca  and  the  polyparia  and  other  low  forma 
of  animal  life  existed  ages  before  there  was  a  spear  of  grass, 
ft  plant,  a  shrub  or  a  tree  upon  the  face  of  the  whole 
earth. 

31.  The  Bible  teaches  that  the  raee  of  man  has  existed 
less  than  6,000  years,  while  numerous  discoveries  have 
been  made  of  the  bones  of  men  which  have  been  excavated 
from  deposits  in  caves  and  caverns,  and  other  localities 
where  they  are  found  side  by  side  with  the  bones  of  cave- 
lions,  cave-bears,  cave-hyenas,  mastodons  and  various  other 
animals  which  passed  from  the  earth  many  thousand  years 
«go.  Crude  implements,  belonging  to  a  primitive  period 
called  *'the  8tone  Age.**  when  man  only  knew  how  to 


TBI  SnKFHBBT-BBNKBTT  DISCUSSION. 


486 


form  his  knives,  his  axes,  his  spears,  his  arrowheads,  etc., 
of  stone  and  flakes  of  flint,  have  been  found  in  such  quanti- 
ties and  in  so  many  localities,  as  to  entirely  set  Bible  chro- 
nology aside  and  prove  positively  that  man  has  existed  on 
the  earth  at  the  very  least  one  hundred  thousand  years,  and 
probably  much  longer.  — 

23.  The  errors  of  omission  on  the  part  of  the  Bible 
writers  were  as  great  as  those  of  commission.  They  never 
alluded  to  the  original  fiery  condition  of  the  earth  when  its 
heat  was  so  great  for  incomputable  ages  that  organized 
life  of  any  kind  was  utterly  impossible  on  the  earth. 

23  Nothing  is  said  in  the  Bible  about  the  Olacial  Period, 
which  scientists  have  positive  proofs  existed  for  a  long 
time  on  the  earth,  when  vast  bodies  of  ice  were  moved  by 
the  water  a  little  as  icebergs  are  now,  when  immense  rocks 
were  frozen  in  the  ice  and  thus  transported  great  dis- 
tances. If  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Bible  writers  to 
give  information  of  what  had  taken  place  on  the  earth, 
the  glacial  period  should  not  have  been  omitted. 

24.  The  Bible  teaches  nothing  of  the  topographical 
changes  that  have  from  time  to  time  taken  place  upon  the 
earth.  It  says  nothing  of  islands  and  continents  and 
mountains  emerging  from  the  ocean,  while  the  plainest 
teachings  of  science  give  the  positive  information  that  the 
Alps,  the  Appenines,  the  Himalayas,  the  Ural  Mountains, 
the  Rocky  Mountains  of  our  own  continent,  the  Andes, 
the  Alleghanies.  the  Gatskills,  and  all  the  other  mountains 
on  the  face  of  the  globe  have  either  emerged  from  the  bed 
of  the  ocean,  or  by  internal  fires  and  forces,  have  been  up- 
heaved from  comparatively  low  ground.  This  was  not  all 
done  at  one  time,  nor  within  the  same  period.  On  the  tops 
of  some  mountains  are  found  remains  of  the  devonian  age; 
on  others,  of  the  carboniferous  period;  on  others  again,  of 
the  cretaceous  period,  showing  that  the  several  mountains 
of  the  globe  were  elevated  at  different  periodSi  and  at  long 
eoni  of  time  apart 


JW  raa  mnawBMt'Waaafn  nnomnov. 

8S.  The  Bible  neither  contains  a  hint  abodt  the  rotund' 
Itgr  of  the  earth,  nor  does  it  contain  a  iisp  of  the  existence 
of  the  vast  Continent  of  America  extending  from  the  North 
Pole,  or  near  it,  to  the  60th  degree  of  south  latitude,  a  dis- 
tauce  of  nearly  ten  thousand  miles,  and  embracing  ever^ 
variety  of  climate,  soil  and  topography,  though  it  an;©. 
dates,  in  existence  as  a  continent,  Europe,  Asia  and  Africa, 
It  was  not  because  the  Bible  writers  did  not  regard 
this  older  part  of  the  world  as  worthy  of  mention,  but  be- 
cause they  were  so  ignorant  of  the  facts  of  geography  that 
they  knew  nothing  about  its  existence,  that  made  them 
neglect  to  speak  of  it ;  and  the  source  of  their  information 
and  inspiration  was  as  ignorant  as  themselves. 

28.  While  the  most  important  truths  of  the  Universe 
were  entirely  omitted  and  ignored,  rambling  tales,  stories 
of  blood  and  carnage,  sketches  of  the  lives  of  worthless 
priests  and  prophets,  heartless  tyrants,  shameless  women, 
stories  filthy  enough  to  cause  the  boldest  man  or  woman  to 
blush  at  their  recital,  genealogical  descents,  unpronounc- 
mble  names,  enigmatical  and  meaningless  passages,  and 
repetitions  of  semi-historical  events  make  up  the  great  bulk 
of  what  you  reverently  call  the  "  Holy  Bible,"  the  **  Book 
Divine,"  the  "greatest  gift  of  God  to  man." etc.,  all  of 
which  is  hallucination-^a  fallacy  of  the  strongest  kind. 

27.  Many  parts  of  the  Bible  are  so  farfetched,  obscure 
and  unintelligible  that  they  are  totally  worthless  to  every- 
body. How  much  good  has  the  Book  of  Daniel,  the  Book 
of  Revelations,  and  many  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  ever 
doue  to  the  world T  None  at  all;  but  have  been  a  cause  for 
Interminable  puzzling,  disputing,  speculating  and  cox^ec* 
turing. 

28.  Scarcely  any  book  ever  published  has  contained 
BO  many  errors  and  inaccuracies.  King  James'  trans- 
lation was  published  in  1611 ;  in  1711  it  was  corrected 
by  bishops  Tenison  and  Lloyds,  thousands  of  errors  having 
crept  into  it    In  1669  Dr.  Blayney  corrected  a  multitude  of 


THE   HUHFHBBT-BEHKBTT  DISCUBSIOV. 


487 


new  errors,  reformed  the  text  in  many  places  and  rectified 
some  material  errors  in  chronology.    More  recently  •*  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  after  having  circulated 
millions  of  copies  of  it,  have  declared  that  a  faithful  exam- 
ination of  it  gives  rise  to  seriotia  doubU  wMJier  it  can  he  truth- 
fuUyeatted  theimdof  Ood.'*    The  American  Bible  Society 
in  1847  appointed  a  committee  of  its  members  to  prepare  a 
standard  edition  of  King  James'  version,  free  from  typo- 
graphical  errors.      They  accordingly  prepared   such   an 
edition,  correcting,  as  they  stated,  twenty-four  thousand 
errors,  but  so  alarmed  were  they  at  the  attacks  made  upon 
it,  that  it  was  withdrawn,  and  the  American  Bible  Society 
continues  to  this  day  to  circulate  a  book,  for  the  word  of  God, 
containing— according  to  their  own  confession— twenty-four 
thousand  errors.    The  Bible  Revision  Committee  at  present 
remodeling  and  improving  the  Word  of  God,  in  England, 
are  said  to  have  reported  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
errors  of  one  kind  and  another  in  the  present  version. 
When  they  bring  out  their  new  version  it  will  be  so  changed 
from  the  one  in  use  that  it  is  questionable  whether  the  mos^ 
ardent  Bible-worshipers  will  be  disposed  to  accept  it  as  tneir 
revered  toord  of  God. 

28.  The  leveral  books  of  the  Bible  are  all  of  them  mere 
transcripts  of  transcripts,  not  one  of  the  original  manuscripts 
being  now  in  existence  and  has  not  been  for  the  last  thousand 
years.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that  copies  from  copies 
must  become  very  full  of  errors.  Of  the  New  Testament 
books  alone  there  are  said  to  be  thirty-two  thousand 
different  versions.  God  would  hardly  be  likely  to  trust  an 
important  word  of  his  to  such  possibilities  of  mutation  and 
corruption. 

80.  The  Bible  misleads  men  by  inducing  them  to  believe 
that  God  can  be  placated  and  gratified  by  spending  one  day 
in  seven  in  idleness;  by  slaying  and  burning  bulls,  rams, 
he-goats  and  other  animals;  and  by  praise,  adulation,  and 
prayer.    It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  God  of  the 


TBB  HVMFHRET-BKimKTT  DIBOinMrOtf. 

Universe  la  in  any  way  affected  by  any  snch  frivolous  pet- 

formances. 

81.  The  Bible  leads  people  to  believe  that  sin  can  be 
forgiven  by  certain  ceremonies  or  penances  being  per- 
fonned,  while  Nature  teaches  that  there  can  be  no 
forgiveness  for  a  law  once  violated  or  a  wrong  act  once 

committed. 

83.  The  Bible  has  made  millions  of  human  beings 
miserable  by  the  inculcation  of  a  belief  In  hell  and  in  a 
devil  to  torment  them  through  the  endless  ages  of  eternity. 
There  is  nothing  in  Nature  that  gives  the  least  foundation 
for  such  a  horrible  belief. 

83.  The  Bible  has  done  more  towards  degrading  woman 
and  towards  keeping  her  in  subjection  to  the  masculine 
gender  than  any  other  influence  in  the  world.  Prom  the 
passage,  "Thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  and  he  shall 
rule  over  thee,"  unto  "Wives,  submit  yoursrives  unto 
your  own  husbands  as  unto  the  Lord,**  woman  has  been 
made  a  mere  slave  to  tyrant  man,  and  it  is  only  when  the 
spirit  of  the  Bible,  in  this  respect,  has  been  disregarded  that 
woman  has  assumed  her  true  position  in  life,  an  equal  of 
man  in  all  respects. 

84.  The  Bible  sanctions  slavery.  From  its  earliest  chro- 
nology, when  the  oldest  books  were  written,  down  to  the 
close  of  the  Book  of  Revelations,  the  Bible  has  justified 
aod  enjoined  human  slavery.  It  established  it  in  many 
instances,  and  haraly  ever  has  condemned  it.  The  influ- 
ence which  the  Bible  shed  in  favor  of  slavery  cost  this 
country  a  protracted,  bloody,  and  expensive  war,  costing 
hundreds  of  millions  In  treasure  and  at  1<  ast  a  million  of 
the  best  lives  in  tne  iano.  Mrs.  Annie  Besant,  thecour- 
ageous  Freethinker  and  eloqnent  orator  of  England,  uses  this 
lauguagc:  **  'Cursed  is  Canaan;  a  servant  of  servants  shall  ho 
be  unto  his  brethren,'  said  the  Bible  from  ten  thousand  pul- 
pits, but  man  arose  and  swore  that,  Bible  or  no  Bible,  the 
slave  should  go  free.  The  Bible  has  bolstered  up  every  in  jua- 


TT  DISCnSSlOlT. 


439 


tioe— it  has  bulwarked  every  tyranny— it  has  defended  every 
wrong.  With  toil  and  pain  and  bloodshed  have  the  sol- 
diers  of  Liberty  wrung  from  the  reluctant  hands  of  priests 
and  Bible-worshipers  every  charter  of  our  freedom  and 
every  triumph  of  our  cause." 

85.  The  Bible  has  retarded  the  progress  of  science.    The 
Jewish  Scriptures  have  been  brought  forward  to  knock 
down  and  strangle  every  new  thought  and  every  effort  to 
reach  something  higher.    The  priests  have  stood  like  high- 
waymen on  the  road  to  progress,  and  to  every  passerby 
have  shouted  :  *'  Your  reason  or  your  lifer*    Prof.  Denton 
says,  "Science  has  flourished  not  because  it  has  bad  the 
Bible  to  help  it,  but  in  spite  of  its  direst  opposition.    As- 
tronomy discovered  that  the  earth  is  round  and  revolves, 
but  the  Bible  taught  something  else,  and  hence  the  astron- 
omer was  an  Infidel  and  astronomy  a  dangerous  science. 
Geology  proved  the  world  to  be  millions  of  years  old,  and 
the  wail  over  its  infidelity  has  not  yet  subsided.    It  is  well 
known  that  man  was  on  earth  ages  before  the  time  of.  the 
the  creation  of  Adam,  according  to  the  Bible,  but  how  cau- 
tious men  are  in  saying  sot  and  how  theologians  denounce 
those  who  dare  to  do  so;  for  it  is  not  in  agreement  with  the 
unknown  writer  of  Genesis.    It  will  be  generally  acknowl- 
edged that  universal  man  is  not  descended  from  one  pair, 
and  that  man  had  a  natural  origin;  but  our  scientific  men, 
especially  Americans,  have  a  padlock  on  their  lips,  and 
orthodoxy  keeps  the  key." 

86.  The  Bible  approves  Polygamy— one  of  the  twin-relics 
of  barbarism.  In  the  cases  of  Abraham,  Jacob,  David  and 
Solomon  we  have  abundant  proof  that  the  Bible  did  not 
condemn  the  multiplicity  of  wives  and  concubines  which 
these  patriarchs  and  saints  indulged  in. 

37.  The  Bible  sanctions  murder  and  the  reckless  taking 
of  human  life.  This  was  carried  to  such  excess  that  some 
days  as  many  as  five  hundred  thousand  are  reported  killed  ia 
a  single  day,  and  of  God's  own  people.    There  is  nothing  in 


/ 


I 


I 


VSB  BUlCFHBKT-BIHlfSTT  DIBCinaiON. 

the  Bible  that  represents  Ck>d  as  being  opposed  to  tlie  efti^ 
sion  of  human  blood.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many 
places  showing  that  he  delighted  in  it.  He  is  often  styled 
the  God  of  battles,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  etc.  In  fact  ho 
seems  to  have  a  special  fondness  for  blood,  both  of  men  and 
animals. 

88.  The  Bible  recognizes  the  right  and  Justice  of  putting 
people  to  death  for  very  trivial  offenses  ;  for  instance  for 
picking  up  sticks  on  the  Sabbath,  the  refractoriness  of 
children,  committing  adultery  and  other  offenses  no  greater 
than  these. 

89.  The  Bible  discriminatei  in  favor  of  the  Jews  and 
against  other  nations,  making  the  Qod  of  the  Bible  to  be 
partial  and  deficient  in  Justice.  Meat  unfit  for  the  use  of 
the  Jews  was  allowed  to  be  sold  to  aliens  and  strangers,  and 
these  were  submitted  to  many  exactions  and  indignities  not 
visited  upon  the  Jews. 

40  According  to  some  passages  in  the  Bible,  it  approves 
of  human  sacrifices,  as  in  the  case  of  Jephtha,  the  hanging 
of  two  sons  and  five  grandsons  of  Saul  to  stop  a  famine, 
and  the  law  given  in  Leviticus  zxvii,  29,  which  required 
that  everything,  whether  man  or  beast,  dewied  to  the  Lort^ 
6hall  surely  be  put  to  death. 

41.  The  severity  of  the  Bible  against  witches  has  been 
the  apology  for  a  great  amount  of  cruelty  and  taking  of 
human  life.  The  Bible  injunction,  '*  Thou  shalt  not  suffer 
a  witch  to  live,"  has  indirectly  caused  the  torture  and  death 
of  probably  hundreds  of  thousands  of  persons  entirely 
innocent  of  witchcraft.  The  inhuman  zealots  who  in 
Europe  and  in  this  country  so  cruelly  persecuted,  tortured 
and  put  to  death  the  thousands  of  unfortunate  wretches  who 
were  stupidly  supposed  to  be  witches  or  to  be  bewitched 
got  their  warrant,  their  authority,  their  impetus  from  th« 
Bible.  They  were  persistent  admirers  and  worshipers  of 
that  book. 

43.  Tlie  Bible  teaches  that  belief  it  a  merif  worthy  o.< 


»HB  mjMPHBKT-BBWNBTT  DISCUSSIOK.  i41 

^rl'^:^^^^^^^^         ^  ^"'"^  ^-^^-^  ot  eternal  pun- 
ishment    This  doctrine  which  seems  to  me  totally  absurd. 

has  been  the  cause  of  incalculable  mischief  irtl  wor  d 
As  belief  and  disbelief  are  arbitrarv  nn„Hf i.  7 

not  anhipnf  t^  «i    •  aroiirary  qualities  or  conditions 

act  subject  to  choice  or  whim,  but  to  evidence  and  reasons 
presened-a  person  being  unable  to  believe  anythirana 
everythingthat  maybe  required  of  him,  the  injustice  oHhU 
doctrmo  is  most  apparent. 

.hf  T  ^"'f  *'""°  sentiment  of  the  Bible  that  God  selecled 
the  Jews  from  among  aU  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  be  lu 
chosen,  peeuu„  peop,e_the  only  nation  to  be  loved  ^ml 
all  others  were  hated-does  great  injustice  to  theUniv"^^ 

^t^anT  au'r^T"'''  '"^  ^**"«  '^"^'^  "^  •"<="- 
world  '  ""'  """  ^"^"^  "'"«»'  «-«  i"  the  / 

44  The  Bible  inculcates  the  absurd  idea  that  labor  is  a 
punishment  .nd  was  inflicted  upon  man  in  consequence 
of  h.s  disobedience  in  eating  a  certain  fruit.  It  .e!che^ 
that  but  for  this  disobedience  man  could  have  lived  •' 
perpetual  ease  and  idleness,  eve^hing  he  needed  g^wi; 
spontaneously  for  him.    This  pernicious  belief  has  worked 

holulh"  '":  r''-    ''  ^"^  P'"-''  "  <l-6-e  upon 
honest  labor,  and  kept  man  back  in  the  night  and  indolence 

salvation.    It  has  raised  him  from  the  low  estate  of  the 
itiaf '  ''^.  f "'  ''■"  *"^"'"^-  '^"  planet  to  hteu^^^ 
aJs  .r/         ""  '"  '"''''•'*'  '^"""-'''^  ^-  --ties 
c!ll.      m""°'"'  '°  •'""^  '="'<'«•  «°»«t™<=t  highways, 
shar     oT  r^'  ""^  '°  °""''' "  •^^"«'^'^"1  Sarden  of  a  laj; 

worn  ?   i      "■^■l!^«ion  and  progress  that  exist  in  the 
world  to-day.  and  without  It  man  would  have  remained  a 

inl^,    ,T» '  ""*  "■"  '°  "P""  "^  ""«  ^""damental  teach- 
ha! h!      1        "■  ^'^''  """"^"^  beingacurse.  a  stigma, 
has  been  the  greatest  blessing  that  has  befallen  mankind 
«6.  Tl»e  doctrine  the  Bible  teaches,  that  the  end  of  the 


-   f 


world  is  near  at  hand,  has  been  a  source  of  immense  dam^ 
age.  It  has  caused  thousands  upon  thousands  to  neglect 
their  business  and  the  rccessary  cares  of  life,  to  abandon 
and  give  away  their  property;  to  become  hopelessly  insane. 
to  wander  OTcr  the  country  like  Tagabonds  until,  miserable 
mendicants,  they  become  the  most  pitiable  objects  in  the 

world. 

46.  The  doctrine  that  it  is  the  height  of  excellence  and 
firtuo  to  liTe  abject  lires  here,  to  take  no  thought  for  the 
morrow,  to^eourt  Ignominy,  to  practice  painful  self-denial^ 
to  live  in  want  and  penury,  to  neglect  the  common  duties 
of  life  for  the  sake  of  riches  in  the  future  world,  for  the 
sake  of  crowns  of  gold  to  wear  upon  the  head,  for  the  sak© 
of  living  in  a  city  with  gates  of  pearl  and  with  streets  paverf 
with  gold,  has  worked  incalculable  mischief  with  thi, 
simple  dupes  who  have  believed  this  syren  song.  Povertf 
and  degradation  here,  for  the  sake  of  riches  and  splendor 
hereafter,  has  been  a  source  of  great  evil,  retarding  enter- 
prise, encouraging  indolence  and  mendicancy.  Ito  influ- 
ence has  been  most  pernicious. 

47.  The  Bible  is  inferior  to  many  works  which  men 
have  perfected.  It  has  been  produced  since  the  pyramids 
of  Egypt  were  builded,  since  the  Sphinx  was  executed, 
since  the  Obelisk  was  erected— which  is  cut  from  a  single 
ftone,  weighs  three  hundred  tons,  and  is  still  standing— 
since  the  colossus  of  Bamses  IL,  which  weighs  nine  bun- 
dred  tons,  was  constructed:  long  since  the  construction  of 
the  monolithic  temple  weighing  five  thousand  tons  de- 
scribed by  Herodotus,  the  one  immense  stone  of  which  it  is 
made  having  been  transported,  no  one  knows  how,  the 
wh«>le  length  of  the  valley  of  the  Nile  to  its  delta;  since 
the  sculpture,  bas-reliefs,  obelisks,  monuments,  and  tern- 
pies  with  the  most  elaborate  inscriptions,  which  were  ex- 
ecuted more  than  thirty-five  centuries  ago.  These  works 
were  performed  by  men,  and  they  certainly  were  far  more 
difficult  of  accomplishment,  and  would  teem  to  need  the 


ftid  of  the  gods  far  more  than  the  writing  of  the  tedious 
details,  the  filtny  stories,  and  the  questionable  history  of 
the  Bible.  Why  not  as  well  insist  that  the  gods  or  a  god 
helped  them  to  perform  those  stupendous  works  as  to  force 
us  to  acknowledge  that  a  god  must  have  assisted  the  writers 
of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  f 

48.  The  greater  portions  of  the  Bible  were  undoubtedly 
written  since  the  Institutes  of  Menu  were  penned,  since  the 
voluminous  Vedas  and  Puranas  were  written,  since  the 
grand  teachings  of  Zoroaster  and  the  Avesta  were  committed 
to  parchment;  long  since  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  of 
Nineveh  and  Assyria  were  executed;  since  many  of  the 
sacred  writings  and  inscriptions  of  Egypt  were  produced; 
about   the  time,  perhaps,  of  the  Indian  saint,  Buddha, 
and  the  wonderful  sayings  he  uttered,  and  the  grand  old 
Chinese  philosopher,  Confucius,  with  his  eminently  practi- 
cal  and  useful  precepts  and  morals.    All  these  were  written 
by  men,  and  you  will  hardly  claim  that  Jehovah  had 
anything  to  do  with  them;  and  as  they  are,  in  point  of 
ability,  purity,  and  grandeur,  equal,  and  more  than  equal, 
to  the  Jehovistic  sacred  writings,  it  is  preposterous  to  insibt 
that  these  could  not  have  also  have  been  written  by  men. 
49.  The  Bible  is  an  advocate  and  supporter  of  kings  and 
tyrants.    It  recognizes  the  divine  right  of  kings  to  rule  over 
the  masses  of  the  people,  who  are  required  to  render  im- 
plicit obedience  and  to  be  nothing  more  nor  less  than  slaves. 
It  does  not  introduce  nor  advocate  the  republican  and 
higher  forms  of   government,  which,  as  civilization  and 
intelligence  advance  in  the  world,  are  found  to  be  vastly 
better  for  the  masses  of  men  than  monarchy  and  tyranny. 
The  God  of  the  Bible  was  little  more  than  a  big  king  or 
despot  who,  with  an  arbitrary  power,  led  his  hosts,1md 
proudly  tyrannized  over  a  nation  of  slaves. 

60.  The  Bible  establishes  and  sustains  a  privileged  class, 
a  divine  aristocracy  which  has  ever  been  a  most  oppressive 
burden  to  mankind.    I  mean  the  priesthood.    One  twelfth 


W9t 


VBB  HimFHBT-JMUIlOTT  mMHHtlOH. 


2 


of  tlM  men  of  Israel  were  set  apart  to  be  priests  to  tli# 
other  eleven  parts.    They  performed  do  manual  labor,  hut 
served  In  the  sanctuary  or  temple,  and  performed  divine 
ceremonies,  such  as  slaying  the  bullocks,  rams,  and  he- 
goats  used  for  sacrifice  (very  likely  thev  helped  to  eat  them, 
too),  together  with  making  peace  offerings,  offerings  of 
prayer  and  praise,  and  attending  to  the  various  celestial 
affairs  of  like  character.    For  these  very  important  services 
they  were  granted  an  immunity  from  toil,  and  were  sup- 
ported in  an  easy,  idle  life.    One  tenth  of  the  products  of 
the  labor  of  the  enUre  people  had  to  be  paid  in  to  support 
this  privileged  class,  and  the  masses  were  required  to  look 
up  to  them  and  revere  them  almost  as  though  they  were 
little  gods.    Priestcraft  has  ever  been  an  onerous  burden 
upon  the  backs  of  the  people.    Prieste  have  ever  been  an 
unproducing,  idle   class  of  ecclesiastical   aristocrats  for 
whom  the  laboring  people  have  been  compelled  to  toil 
The  priests,  in  all  systems  of  religion,  have  claimed  tiiat 
they  knew  more  about  the  gods,  the  devils,  and  their  wills 
and  purposes,  than  all  the  world  beside,  and  have  claimed 
to  be  able  to  act  as  mediators  between  the  gods  and  the 
people,  that  they  had  great  influence  at  the  courts  of  the 
gods,  that  they  could  influence  them  with  their  prayers  and 
placate  them  by  their  adoration,  their  praise  and  their  offer- 
ings*   The  people  have  for  thousands  of  years  been  fools 
enough  to  believe  these  representations,  and  to  think  they 
must  have  priests  to  perform  their  business  with  the  god| 
for  them,  to  tell  the  gods  what  the  people  wanted,  and  to  tell 
the  people  the  will  of  the  gods  toward  them  and  whut  thef 
required  of  them.    For  performing  this  heavenly  broker- 
age business,  for  thus  acting  as  go  betweens  to  and  from  Ihi 
gods  and  their  vassals,  the  priests  have  made  an  extremely 
good  thing  of  it.    They  have  lived  upon  the  fat  of  the  land, 
they  have  dressed  in  the  finest  of  linen,  broadcloth  and 
costly  furs,  they  have  received  a  great  amount  of  reverence^ 
•nd  thousands  of  exquisite  tefors  have  been  granted  them 


«HB  HUMPHBBT-BBNIYBTT  DISOTJSSION.  445 

by  the  female  portion  of  their  flocks  which  you  prefer  I 
should  not  allude  to,  and  all  this  without  blistering  their 
hands,  without  soiling  their  fine  garments,  or  without  caus- 
ing the  perspiration  to  start  from  their  brows.    They  have 
been  par  excellence,  the  celestial  ari&tocracy  here  below,  and 
to  prove  that  they  were  entitled  to  all  the  honors  bestowed 
upon  them  they  claim  they  have  a  commission  from  the 
throne  above  the  clouds.    Though  they  have  been  liberally 
rewarded  for  their  very  valuable  services,  they  have  not 
proved  to  be  always  useful  or  always  harmless.     They 
have  been  extremely  busy  and  extremely  officious.    They 
have  instigated  many  theological  dissensions  among  men  ; 
they  have  raised  many  ecclesiastical  points  and  formulated 
many  new  creeds  which  they  have  required  the  people  to 
accept.    Nor  have  they  been  willing  to  keep  out  of  the 
political  field.    They  have  instigated  countless  quarrels, 
embroglios,  contests,  wars  and  caused  incalculable  blood- 
shed.   O  yes,  they  have  been  a  very  costly  luxury  to  poor 
credulous  mankind,  and  I  cannot  think  a  kind,  heavenly 
Father,  full  of  kindness,  love  and  compassion,  whom  you 
tell  U8  sits  upon  his  throne  a  little  way  above  the  clouds, 
keeping  his  loving  and  benignant  eye  always  upon  us,* 
would  ever  have  devised  or  countenanced  such  an  institu- 
tion as  the  priesthood.    It  is  wholly  of  human  origin. 

I  have  thus  given  you  my  fifty-stranded  cable  of  reasons 
why  the  Bible  should  not  be  regarded  as  the  production  of 
the  Supreme  Power  of  the  Universe  in  place  of  your  ten- 
Btranded  cable.    I  modestly  think  my  strands  are  at  least 
five  times  as  strong,  individually,  as  yours,  and  as  there  are 
five  times  as  many  of  them,  my  cable,   mathematically 
speaking,  must  be  two  hundred  and  fifty  times  as  stroug 
as  yours!    The  relative  difference  between  the  two.isua- 
doubtedly  as  great  as  that— as  thousands  are  daily  coming 
to  see.    Ttie  book  which  so  many  have  made  a  fetish  of 
and  worshiped  almost  precisely  as  fetish  worshipers  used 
lo  worship  their  idols,  is  being  daUy  more  and  more  under- 


4118 


TBB  BUXPHRST-BSimXTT  DIBCTTIKON. 


Stood  in  ito  true  character.  It  is  becoming  widely  compre- 
bended  that  it  is  a  book  entirely  of  human  production,  and 
manufactured,  as  all  other  books  aro»  and  that  it  exhibits  no 
more  marks  of  divinity  than  any  other  book.  Let  me  here 
gire  one  more  somewhat  extended  quotation  from  Col.  R 
G.  Ingersoll,  whom,  I  am  sorry  to  notice,  you  regard  with 
little  favor: 

**  According  to  theologiais,  God,  the  father  of  us  all, 
wrote  a  letter  to  his  children.  The  children  hare  always 
differed  somewhat  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  letter.  In  con- 
sequence of  these  honest  differences,  these  brothers  began 
to  cut  out  each  other*8  hearts.  In  every  land  where  this 
letter  from  God  has  been  read  the  children  to  whom  and 
for  whom  it  was  written  have  been  filled  with  hatred  and 
malice.  They  have  imprisoned  and  murdered  each  other, 
and  the  wives  and  children  of  each  other.  In  the  name  of 
God  every  possible  crime  has  been  committed,  every  con- 
ceivable outrage  has  been  perpetrated.  Brave  men,  tender 
and  loving  women,  beautiful  girls,  and  prattling  babes 
have  been  exterminated  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  For 
more  than  fifty  generations  the  Church  has  carried  the  black 
flag.  Her  veniseance  has  been  measured  only  by  her  power. 
During  all  these  years  of  infamy  no  heretic  has  ever  been 
forgiven.  With  the  heart  of  a  fiend  she  has  hated ;  with 
the  clutch  of  avarice  she  has  grasped  ;  with  the  jaws  of  a 
dragon  she  has  devoured ;  pitiless  as  famine,  merciless  as 
fire,  with  the  conscience  of  a  serpent.  Such  is  the  history 
of  the  Church  of  God. 

*'  I  do  not  say,  and  I  do  not  believe,  that  Christians  are  as 
bad  as  their  creeds.  In  spite  of  church  and  dogma,  there 
have  been  millions  and  millions  of  men  and  women  true 
to  the  loftiest  and  most  generous  promptings  of  the  human 
heart.  They  have  been  true  to  their  convictions,  and  with 
a  self-denial  and  fortitude  excelled  by  none,  have  labored 
and  suffered  for  the  salvation  of  men.  Imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  believing  that  by  personal  effort  they 


TttB  mJMPHBST-BENNKTT  IHSCUSfllOV.  #|7 

could  rescue  at  least  a  few  souls  from  the  Infinite  shadow 
of  hell,  they  have  cheerfully  endured  every  hardship  and 
eoorned  every  danger.  And  yet,  notwitbetandlng  aH 
this,  they  believed  that  honest  error  was  a  crin^.  Th^ 
knew  that  the  Bible  so  declared,  and  they  believed  that  all 
unbelievers  would  be  eternally  lost  They  believed  that  re- 
ligion was  of  God  and  all  heresy  of  the  Devil.  They  killed 
heretics  in  defense  of  their  own  souls  and  the  souls  of  their 
children.  They  killed  them  because,  according  to  their 
idea,  they  were  the  enemies  of  God,  and  because  the  Bible 
teaches  that  the  blood  of  the  unbeliever  is  a  mosi  accept- 
able  sacrifice  to  heaven. 

"Nature  never  prompted  a  loving  mother  to  throw  her 
■child  into  the  Ganges.  Nature  never  prompted  men  to  ex- 
terminate  each  other  for  a  difference  of  opinion  conceming 
the  baptism  of  infants.  These  crimes  have  been  produced 
by  religions  filled  with  all  that  Is  illogical,  cruel  and  hide- 
ous. These  religions  were  produced  for  the  most  part  by 
ignorance,  tyranny  and  hypocrisy.  ITnder  the  impression 
that  the  infinite  ruler  and  creator  of  the  TJniverse  had  com- 
■manded  the  destruction  of  heretics  and  Infidels,  the  Church 
perpetrated  all  these  crimes. 

•'Men  and  women  have  been  burned  for  thinking  there 
Is  but  one  God ;  that  there  was  none ;  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
Is  younger  than  God  4  that  God  was  somewhat  older  tham 
ills  Son ;  for  insisting  that  good  works  will  save  a  man 
without  faith ;  that  faith  will  do  without  good  works  ;  for 
declaring  that  a  sweet  babe  will  not  be  burned  eternaUy 
because  its  parents  failed  to  have  its  head  wet  by  a  priest^  • 
ioT  speaking  of  God  as  though  he  had  a  nose  ;  for  denying 
that  Christ  was  his  own  father  ;  for  contending  that  three 
persons,  rightly  added  together,  make  more  than  one  ;  for 
believing  in  purgatory;  for  denying  the  reality  of  hell ;'  for 
pretending  that  priests  can  forgive  sins ;  for  preaching  that 
God  is  an  essence ;  for  denying  that  witches  rode  through 
^  air  on  sticks ;  for  doubting  Ihe  toUl  d^ravity  of  the 


418 


THB  HUMFflBST-BENNSTT  ]>I8CU8810V. 


hamaii  heart ;  for  laughing  at  imsisUble  grace,  predestina- 
tion and  particular  redemption;  for  denying  that  good 
bread  could  be  made  of  the  body  of  a  dead  man ;  for  pre- 
tending  that  the  Pope  was  not  managing  this  world  for 
God.  and  in  place  of  God ;  for  disputing  the  efficacy  of  a 
vicarious  atonement ;  for  thinking  that  the  Virgin  Mary 
was  born  like  other  people  ;  for  thinking  that  a  man's  rib 
was  hardly  sufficient  to  make  a  good  sized  woman ;  for 
denying  that  God  used  his  finger  for  a  pen  ;  for  asserting 
that  prayers  are  not  answered,  that  diseases  are  not  sent  to 
punish  unbelief  ;  for  denying  the  authority  of  the  Bible  • 
for  having  a  Bible  in  their  possession  ;  for  attending  mass' 
and  for  refusing  to  attend  ;  for  wearing  a  surplice  ;  for  car'- 
ryiag  a  cross,  and  for  refusing  ;  for  being  a  Catholic,  and 
for  bemg  a  Protestant,  for  being  an  EpiscopaUan,  a  Presby- 
tcrian,  a  Baptist,  and  for  being  a  Quaker.    In  short,  every 
virtue  has  been  a  crime,  and  every  crime  a  virtue.    The 
Church  has  burned  honesty  and  rewarded  hypocrisy,  and 
«U  this,  because  it  was  commanded  by  a  book— a  book 
that  men  had  been  taught  implicitly  to  believe,  long  be- 
fore they  knew  one  word  that  was  in  it.    They  had  been 
taught  that  to  doubt  the  truth  of  this  book,  to  examine  it 
even,  was  a  crime  of  such  enormity  that  it  could  not  be 
forgiven,  cither  in  this  world  or  in  the  next. 

"  The  Bible  was  the  real  persecutor.  The  Bible  burned 
heretics,  built  dungeons,  founded  the  Inquisition,  and  tram- 
pled upon  all  the  liberties  of  men. 

•'How  long,  O  how  long  will  mankind  worship  a  book  f 
How  long  Will  they  grovel  in  the  dust  before  the  ignorant 
legends  of  the  barbaric  past  f  How  long,  O  how  long 
will  they  pursue  phantoms  in  a  darkness  deeper  than 
death  f** 

With  your  usual  accuracy  you  say:  "Such  words  as 
teething,  roagting,  lina  frying  belong  exclusively  to  the  Infidel 
vocabulary."  Allow  me  once  more  to  correct  you.  They 
legitimately  belong  to  the  theory  of  countless  millions  of 


THB  HUMPHHBY-BiamBTT  DIBCUSSIOir.  4|8 

srneln'whf  T"""'^'^  '"  ''^^*^^^'  ^'^'^-^  ^^^  -^^  brim- 
stone  in  which  you  so  fondly  believe.  If  the  unfortunaTe 
wretches  cast  in  the  burning  lake  will  r,«f  .  «  ^^^^ortunate 

Jhf.  prav  what  U  fh«  ^°^  *^^^'  ^^^  ^^ 

jry.  pray  what  is  the  reason,  and  where  is  the  wronir  in 

using    he  terms.    But.  to  show  you  that  these  words  do 

not  belong  exclusively  to  the  "Infidel  vocabulary  ^Lit 

me  to  make  a  few  quotations  from  strictly  orthodoi  source 

upon  your  favorite  theme.  "Hell  and  Damnation- 

In  Baxter>s  "  Saint's  Rest "  he  thus  rapturously  addresses 

himself  to  sinners:  ^^  Your  torment  shall  be  uMvers" 

Thl   Jut     'J   t°^  '"'  body  shall  each  have  its  torments 
The  guilt  of  their  sins  shall   be  to  damned  souls  hke 

;«-  ;..u  .,.J  „'?i;„„;  J^'JT.^Sz 

damned  souls.    The  ears  shall  be  tortured  with  t^  bowf 
Zn    H  TT"  "'  ''^''  companions  in  torments.    Thiir 
emel    shall  be  tortured  with  the  fumes  of  brimstone,  and 
the  hquid  massof  eternal  fire  shall  prey  upon  every  pa  t 
.    Ko  drop  of  water  shall  be  allowed  to  cool  theiMCes: 
no  moment    ,  respite  peimitted  to  relieve  their  agonTes."  ' 
thJ  H    'r"^^^"'^^*'^  gi^es  this  delectable  picture:  "All 
he  devils  in  hell  will  be  with  thee  howling  and  roaring 

lip  unH  f,.„        I  .        *«"«"t.    .    .    .    iiere  thou  must 

.wt;.;?C  ^'^   '""'^«  "'•'  ««^  -'»-.  tan. 


Clattering  of  Iron,  and  the  olank  of  ohalns : 
The  clane  o  laahlne  whips,  shrill  shrieks  and  «o«n«. 
loud. ceaseless  howUnes. cries,  and  plerclnemo^ 
Wfeanwb„e  as  If  but  li«ht  were  all  their  rain 
legions  Of  devils,  bound  themselves  in  chains. 
Tormented  and  tormentors,  o'er  them  shake. 
Thon«»  and  forked  Iron  In  the  burning  lake. 


! 


Beloblnff  eternal  flameB.  and  wreathed  wltli  sptWi 
Of  curling  serpents,  ronse  the  brimstone  «"•. 
With  whips  of  fiery  scorpions  econrBe  their  siavea. 
And  in  their  faces  dash  the  livid  wavea.* 

The  Kev.  Mr.  Benson,  a  prominent  Methodist  cominen. 
tator  of  England,  uses  this  language  : 

"Infinite  justice  arrests  their  guilty  souls  and  confines 
them  in  the  dark  prisons  of  hell,  till  they  hare  satisfied  all 
the  demands  by  their  personal  sufferings,  which  a  as  I  they 
never  can  do.    .    •    .    God  is  present  in  bell  In  his  infinite 
justice  and  almighty  wrath  as  an  unquenchable  sea  of 
Uquid  fire,  where  the  wicked  must  drink  in  everlastmg  tor- 
ture     His  fiery  indignation  kindles  and  his  incensed  fury 
feeds  the  flame  of  their  torment,  while  his  powerful  pres- 
eace  and  operation  maintain    their  being  and  render  all 
their  powers  most  acutely  sensible,  thus  setting  the  keenest 
edge  upon  their  pain,  and  making  it  mtmoit  intoUrably  deep. 
He  wUl  exert  aU  his  divine  attributes  to  make  them  as 
wretched  as  the  capacity  of  their  natures  will  admit,    .    . 
Number  the  stars  in  the  firmament,  the  drops  of  rain,  the 
sands  on  tbe  sea  shore,  and  when  thou  hast  finished  the 
calculation,  sit  down  and  number  aU  the  ages  of  woe.    Let 
every  star,  every  drop,  every  grain  of  sand,  represent  an4 
mmm  af  tormenting  ag€$ ;  and  know  that  as  many  more 
millions  sliU  remain  behind  them,  and  so  on  without  end." 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Ambrose,  in  a  sermon  on  Dooms-day,  drew 

tbis  picture : 

-  When  the  damned  have  drunken  down  whole  draughU 
of  brimstone  one  day,  they  must  do  the  same  another  day, 
The  eye  shall  be  tormented  with  the  sight  of  devils ;  the 
ears  with  the  hideous  yelllngs  and  outcries  of  ihe  damnsd 
inflames;  the  nostrils  shall  be  smothered,  as  it  were,  witb 
brimstone  ;  the  tongue,  the  hand,  the  foot  and  every  pari 
BhAW  fry  in  flamet:* 

This  delicate  delineation  of  the  loveliness  of  beU  is  from 
the  pen  of  theKw.  X  Furniss,  C.  a  R.  E..  and  was  pub- 


reat  hitmfhbbt-bibnnbtt  dzbcussiok. 


451 


llshed  by  authority  in   England,  and  was   part  of  the 
instruction  designed  for  the  young: 

••  We  know  how  far  it  is  to  the  middle  of  the  earth;  it  is 
Just  four  thousand  miles;  so  if  hell  is  in  the  middle  of  the 
earth,  it  is  four  thousand  miles  to  the  horrible  prison  of 
heU.    Down  in  this  place  is  a  terrific  noise.    Listen  to  the 
tremendous,  the  horrible  uproar  of  millions  and  millions 
and  mUlions  of  tormented  creatures,  mad  with  the  fury 
of  hell!    Oh,  the  screams  of  fear,  the  groanings  of  horror, 
ihj  yells  of  rage,  the  cries  of  pain,  the  shouts  of  agony] 
tho  shrieks  of  despair,  from  millions  on  millions  1    There 
you  hear  them  roaring  like  lions,  hissing  like  serpents, 
hciwling  like  dogs,  and  wailing  like  dragons.    There  you 
hear  the  gnashing  of  teeth  and  the  fearful  blasphemies 
of  the  devils.    Above  all,  you  hear  the  roaring  of  the 
thunder*'  of  God's  anger,  which  shakes  hell  to  its  founda- 
dons.    But  there  is  another  sound.    There  is  in  hell  a 
sound  like  that  of  many  waters.    It  is  as  if  all  the  rivers 
and  oceans  of  the  world  were  pouring  themselves  with  a 
great  splash  down  on  the  floor  of  hell.    Is  it,  then,  really 
the  sound  of  waters  !    It  is.    Are  the  rivers  and  oceans  of 
the  earth  pouring  themselves  into  hell  ?    No.    What  is 
it,  then  ?    It  is  the  sound  of  oceans  of  tears  runninir  down 
from  countless  millions  of  eyes.    They  cry  forever  and 
ever.    They  cry  because  the  sulphurous  smoke  torments 
their  eyes.    They  cry   because   they   are   in   darkness. 
They  cry  because  they  have  lost  the  beautiful  heaven. 
They  cry  because  the  sharp  fire  burns  them.    .    .    .    The 
roof  is  red  hot;  the  walls  arc  red  hot;  the  floor  as  like  a 
thick  sheet  of  red  hot  iron.    See.  on  the  middle  of  that  red 
het  iron  floor  stands  a  girl.    She   looks   about   sixteen 
years  of  agei    She  has  neither  shoes  nor  stockings  on 
her  feet.    I'he  door  of  this  room  has  never  been  opened 
since  she  first  set  her  feet  on  this  red  hot  floor.    Now  she 
sees  the  door  opening.    She  rushes  forward.    She   has 
gone  down  upon  her  knees  upon  the  red  hot  floor.    Listen, 


<M  vat  OmiPBItKT-BSNNBTT  DISCUSSIOIT. 

She  speaks.     She  says:  '1  hare  been  atanding  with  my 
bare  feet  on  this  red  floor  for  years.    Day  and  night  my 
only  standing  place  has  been  this  rod  hot  floor.    Sleep 
nerer  came  to  me  for  a  moment,  that  I  might  forget  this 
horrible  burning  floor.    Look  at  my  burnt  and  bleeding 
feet.    Let  me  go  r.ff  this  burning  floor  for  one  moment- 
only  for  a  short  moment.  Oh,  that  in  this  endlesss  eternity 
of  years,  I  might  forget  the  pain  only  for  one  single  mo- 
mcnt.'    The  Devil  answers  her  question.    'Do  you  ask 
for  a  moment-f or  one  moment  to  forget  your  pain  t    No 
not  for  one  single  moment  during  the  neverending  eter- " 
nity  of  years  shall  you  ever  leave  this  red  hot  floor  " 

I  am  aware.  Bro.  Humphrey,  of  your  fondness  for  this 
kmd  of  hterature.  and  I  would  gladly  favor  you  with  many 
other  choice  extracts  of  the  same  kind  which  1  have  in 
my  possession,  but  a  feeling  of  mercy  for  oor  readers 
prompts  me  to  desist.  I  will  furnish  you  much  more  of  the 
same  kind  of  interesting  reading  matter  at  any  time  you 
wish  It.  It  U  a  beautiful  picture,  is  it  not  1  How  can  any- 
body  help  loving  a  religion  which  has  such  a  hell  and  loving 
a  God  capable  of  getting  it  all  upf  I  trust  I  have  convinced 
you  that  the  words  uething,  roasting  and  frying  do  not  be- 
lonff  exclusively  to  the  '•  Infldel  vocabnlaiy  " 

In  alluding  to  your  personal  experience,  you  say  that  the 
more  you  make  yourself  acquainted  with  the  contents  of 
the  Bible,  the  more  astonished  ycu  become  at  the  same; 
that  U  ,s  a  perennial  fountain  to  your  soul;  that  you  rise 
from  ,t  ready  to  say,  like  Jacob  at  Bethel,  "How  dreadful 
is  this  place.    This  is  none  other  than  the  house  of  God 
and  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven  ";  that  you  "  find  It  a  feast 
both  for  the  intellect  and  for  the  heart.    It  is  as  full  of  wis- 
dom  as  a  father's  counsel,  and  as  full  of  affection  as  a 
motners  bosom."    I  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  differ- 
ent effecU  that  it  produces  upon  you  and  myself.    It  does 
not  make  me  feel  that  way  at  all.    It  awakens  no  special 
fervor  in  my  breast,  and  does  not  enthuse  me  ••  worth  i 


THl  HUKPHBET-BENKBrr  DnCUBSlOlT. 


458 


eent."    Looking  upon  it  vis  I  would  upon  any  other  book, 
wholly  man-made,  it  fails  to  arouse  my  religious  feelings! 
I   presume   you    feel   very  much   the   same,  when   you 
read  that  old  book,   as  does  the  Brahmin  when  he  reads 
his  Vedas,  the  Buddhist  when  he  pores  over  the  sacred 
inculcations  of  Sayka-Muni,  the  Parsee  when  he  peruses 
the  maxims  and  precepts  of  Zoroaster,  the  Chinese  when 
he  reads  the  excellent  sayings  of  Confucius,  the  Moham- 
medan when  he  rises  from  the  Koran,  and  the  Mormon 
when  -he   has   filled  his  soul  from  the  fountain  of  the 
Mormon  Bible,  the  plates  of  which  the  prophet,  Joe  Smith, 
asserted  that  he  obtained  in  a  miraculous  manner,  but 
which  were  really  an  unpublished  romance  written  in  Bible 
style  by  an  ex-Methodist  preacher  named  Spaulding.    I 
look  upon  you  as  occupying  the  same  mental  plane  as  they, 
and  I  regard  you  all  as  being  equally  in  error  concerning 
the  divine  afflatus  which  you  severally  imagine  you  draw 
from  your  sacred  bibles.    I  only  hope  that  you  may  all 
learn  to  look  to  the  truths  of  Nature  for  guidance,  and  dls- 
card  all  superstitions  and  antiquated  myths. 

I  am  a  trifle  amused  at  your  efforts  to  prove  the  existence 
of  God  from  the  '*  bumps  "  on  a  man's  head.    If  the  cen- 
tral  portion  of  the  head  being  high  proves  a  God,  does  not 
being  full  over  and  back  of  the  ears  also  prove  a  Devil  f 
Is  it  not  rather  a  weak  conception  that  the  shape  of  men'g 
skulls  make  the  slightest  difference  with  the  existence  or 
non  existence  of  a  divine  being  ?    If  there  are  more  men 
with  low  heads  than  high  ones,  would  not  the  majority  be 
against  your  God,  and  would  he  not  be  ruled  out  ?    If  God 
has  no  place  to  exist  except  in  men's  skulls,  is  it  not  about 
time  that  he  stepped  down  and  out?    Possibly  God  exists 
only  to  those  with  large  organs  of  veneration,  while  to 
those  who  are  small  in  that  region  he  does  not  exist  at  all,    ' 
or  rather  that  the  only  existence  that  imaginary  being  has 
Is  In  the  whims  and  fancies  of  men  and  women. 
The  question  of  the  existence  of  a  God  does  not  legiti- 


Yt 


11, 


THB  BTJltPHBBT-BftMinBTT  PMCOTPOK. 


mately  belong  in  this  discussion,  but  as  it  lias  been  intro- 
duced, and  you  doTote  considerable  space  to  the  subject,  1 
will  consider  it  for  a  few  moments.  Tou  say,  '*  let  us  begin 
at  tbe  beginning."  That  is  very  well ;  but  where  is  the 
beginning  t  When  was  it  T  Before  we  begin  at  the  begins 
ninff,  is  it  not  well  to  be  sure  there  was  a  beginning  ?  You 
say,  too,  "  It  is  self-eyident  that  Bomeihing  must  haye  ex- 
isted from  eternity."  How  about  the  beginning  of  that 
iomdhing  that  has  ever  existed  r  Did  it  have  a  beginning  t 
Did  eternity  have  a  beginning  T  Did  space  have  a  begin- 
ning r  Of  course  not,  and  it  will  be  impossible  to  find  tbeir 
beginning  to  begin  at. 

I  accept  it  as  a  self-evident  proposition  that  tomeOting can- 
not eomefrom  nothing.  All  the  gods  that  men  ever  dreamed 
of  could  not  make  something  of  nothing.  As  IngersoU 
■ays,  "  Nothing,  considered  in  the  light  of  a  raw  material,  is 
a  most  decided  failure.*'  By  no  process  that  has  ever  been 
discovered,  can  nothing  be  converted  into  iomething.  By 
ail  the  skill  which  the  world  has  possessed  not  one  grain  of 
matter  has  ever  been  destroyed,  not  one  grain  has  ever 
been  created.  From  these  premises  it  is  very  easy  to  arrive 
it  the  conclusion  that  whatever  exists  to-day  ever  did  exist 
in  some  form,  for  it  is,  we  see,  totally  impossible  to  speak 
or  create  or  evolve  something  from  nothing.  Matter  may 
pass  through  interminable  changes  and  transformations, 
but  it  can  neither  be  increased  nor  lessened. 

Tou  speak  of  Mrto  and  make  an  effort  to  conneist  it 
somehow,  mysteriously,  with  your  Deity.  F&ree  is  a  con- 
comitant, an  integral  part,  an  eternal  attendant  upon  Mat- 
tor.  There  can  be  no  Foreo  without  Matter^  and  equally  no 
Maittr  without  fcrco.  These  are  in  certain  degrees  con- 
vertible one  into  the  other.  We  well  know  that  matter 
contains  latent  force,  and  that  the  forces  in  the  Universe 
unite  in  organizing  matter  in  comparatively  solid  form. 
All  matter  by  the  agency  of  force  is  susceptible  of  taking 
the  etherial  forms,  and  all  etherial   forms,  by  the  idd 


vox  HDMPHRXT-BSimBTT  DISCUSSION. 


iOfS 


of  force  and  chemical  affinity,  are  capable  of  taking  solid 
forms.  All  matter  is  charged  with  force  or  life.  There 
is  no  inert  matter,  there  is  no  dead  matter.  Life  and 
force  exist  everywhere  where  matter  is,  and  matter  in  some 
form  exists  everywhere  where  space  is.  Matter  or  sub- 
stance is  as  infinite  as  space  or  eternity,  and  had  a  beginning 
just  as  much  and  no  more.  Force  is  as  beginningless  as 
matter.    Neither  could  have  begun  ;  neither  can  end. 

These  being  accepted  as  truths,  and  truths  I  verily 
believe  them  to  be,  there  is  little  chance  of  your  supernat- 
ural, personal,  anthropomorphic,  Jewish  God  with  parts 
and  organs—necessarily  occupying  but  a  single  point  in  the 
Universe  at  a  given  time — ever  coming  into  existence  ;  and 
there  is  absolutely  no  office  for  him  to  fill,  no  place  for  him 
to  occupy,  nothing  for  him  to  do.  All  the  forces  that 
now  exist  in  the  Universe  ever  did  exist,  and  they  acted  as 
perfectly  decillions  of  ages  ago  as  they  do  to-day.  In  view 
of  these  grand  conceptions,  how  crude,  how  weak  and 
puerile  is  the  idea  that  the  Jewish  Jehovah  is  superior  to 
them  all,  and,  six  thousand  years  ago,  spoke  the  boundless 
Universe  into  existence  from  nothing  I  This  is  undoubtedly 
one  of  the  most  baseless  vagaries  ever  indulged  in  by  the 
human  mind.  To  my  conception  it  is  vastly  grander  and 
vastly  truer  to  accept  the  great  fact  that  the  glorious  Uni- 
verse, with  all  its  intricacies,  all  its  potencies,  all  its  possi- 
bilities, all  its  ever-changing  forms  and  forces,  ever  existed 
in  perfection  as  it  exists  to-day,  than  the  childish  belief  that 
a  few  thousand  years  ago  it  was  somehow  brought  into  exist- 
ence by  a  deity  in  the  form  of  a  big  man  who  had  passed 
countless  eons  tomewhere  or  nowhere,  surrounded  hyTWthing^ 
and  reposing  in  perfect  idleness.  For  me,  I  repeat,  it  is  much 
easier  to  accept  the  fact  that  the  Universe  ever  existed,  with 
all  its  substance  and  all  its  force,  than  to  admit  the  eternal  ex- 
istence of  a  god  capable  of  devising  and  speaking  it  all  into 
existence,  or  bringing  it  from  non-existence  If  we  admit 
that  substance  idways  existed,  we  may  as  well  go  a  little  f  ar« 


I 

a 
•I 

ri 
t 


If 


f'. 


w»  BUMPHitaT-BKinnrrT  DiacuBnov. 

tlwr  and  admit  that  force  and  iu  immutable  laws  also 
always  existed. 

V    You  epeak  of  Mind,  of  its  inherent  laws,  etc,  and  seem 
to  think  it  has  a  domain  and  an  existence  apart  from  the 
Universe.    Nothing,  to  my  view,  can  be  more  erroneous. 
Mmd  belongs  to  the  Universe,  and  is  simply  a  function  of 
organized  matter,  the  same  as  any  other  faculty  or  function 
of  the  body.    It  has  no  domain  by  itself,  no  separate  ex- 
istence.    There  is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  mind  or 
intellect  has  ever  existed  except  as  produced  by  an  organ- 
iaation  adapted  to  its  production.    Mind  or  thought  is  only 
generated  through  the  medium  of  the  brain  and  nervous 
aystem,  the  same  as  the  sight  is  produced  by  the  eye  and 
optic  nerves,  hearing  by  the  mechanism  of  the  ear  and  ihe 
auricular  nerves,  and  muscular  strength  by  the  muscles, 
tendons,  etc.    These  are  all  equally  sustained  by  the  food 
taken  into  the  stomach,  and  when  digested  and  assimilated 
pass  into  chyme  and  chyle,  and  by  means  of  the  circula- 
tory apparatus  are  carried  over  the  entire  system.    When  a 
man  recuperates  his  stomach  with  a  healthy  meal,  digestion 
at  once  begins,  and  the  latent  force  in  the  food  is  assimilated 
and  imparted  to  physical  functions,  and  whether  he  walka 
twenty  miles,  chops  a  cord  of  wood,  carries  three  tons  of 
eoal  up  as  many  flights  of  stairs,  or  works  ten  hours  at  writ- 
ing  or  other  menial  labor,  the  process  that  goes  on  in  his 
organization  is  much  the  same;  the  food  that  has  been 
eaten    and   digested   goes   to  supply   the  waste   that   is 
produced  by  the  effort  made,  be  it  physical  or  mental,  and 
if  this  effort  is  continued  and  the  waste  is  kept  up,  addi- 
tional food  from   time  to  time  must  be  taken.    If  the 
food  is  shut  off  the  man  cannot  continue  to  walk,  he  can- 
not continue  to  chop  wood  nor  carry  up  coal,  and  equally 
impossible  will  it  be  for  him  to  continue  his  mental  labor 
Our  thoughts  are  just  as  much  the  result  of  the  food  we  eat 
as  is  our  muscular  strength  or  any  other  function  of  ouf 
organization.    Truly  haa  it  been  said  that  the  finest  poema 


'^  HUMPHRBT-BENinrrT  maonstKMr.  4S7 

and  dramas  that  have  ever  been  written  are  simply  well- 
digested  and  well-assimilated  meat,  bread,  and  potatoes. 
With  a  good  organization  and  proper  food,  good  thoughts 
can  be  produced,  and  without  them  they  cannot  be.  There 
is  no  existing  proof.  I  repeat,  of  any  thoughts,  any  mind, 
any  intellect,  unless  it  is  produced  by  an  organization 
adapted  to  the  purpose.  A  Great  Central  Intellect,  a  vast 
fountain  of  mind,  is  equally  absurd  as  to  talk  about  a  great 

vo  r  of  taste,  or  a  general  storehouse  of  muscular  strength. 
All  are  alike  the  production  of  organization,  and  can  exist 
in  no  other  way. 

Intelligence  is  found  In  lesser  or  greater  degree  in  every 
form  of  animal  life,  and  always  in  proportion  to  the  organl- 
zaUon  wh.ch  produces  it;  and  possibly  in  a  still  more  lim- 
/ted  degree  in  vegetable  life.    The  Jelly-flsU  is  a  very  low 
form  of  life,  and  it  has  a  very  low  grade  of  Intellect,  but  it  is 
sufficient  to  serve  its  purpose  in  taking  its  food  and  in  fill- 
ing  lU  humble  sphere  of  existence.    The  oyster  leads  a 
very  secluded  life.    It  has  little  brain  or  nervous  system 
and  consequently  has  but  little  intellect,  but  it  has  some' 
and  it  is  exactly  In  keeping  with  its  organization,  and  as  i[ 
18  sufficient  to  lead  it  to  take  the  food  necessary  to  its  tub- 
sisteuce  and  to  close  its  castle-gate  when  danger  approaches. 
It  .s  sufficient  to  subserve  its  purpose.    As  we  rise  in  the 
scale  of  animal  Me  through  the  articulate,,  the  tertebrata 
the  quadrupeds,  the  mammals,  up  to  man,  we  find  that  the 
intellect  increases  as  the  organization  is  more  perfect,  and 
th«t  the  mind  of  the  animal  is  always  in  exact  proportion 
to  the  character  of  organization.     We  notice  that  bees 
ants,  rata,  foxes,  dogs,  horses,  elephants  and  many  other 
animals  have  minds  much  better  developed  than  have  the 
cruder  animals,  and  it  is  wholly  because  they  have  better 
brains  and  nervous  organizations.    They  would  all  reason 
as  well  as  men  if  their  mental  organizations  were  as  per- 
Xoct    TWe  is  great  difference  in  the  intellect  of  different 


ifl 


488' 


BinfPBBtT-BBNKBTT  DI8CUMI0K. 


•il* 


*  . 


men  ai|d  women,  but  apart  from  culture  and  training,  it  ia 
wholly  the  difference  in  organization  that  madee  the  differ- 
ence in  the  mind.  As  there  are  no  two  organizations  just 
alike,  so  no  two  minds  are  ever  found  to  be  alike.  If  the 
mind  is  a  mere  spark  from  the  great  fountain  of  eternal 
mind,  as  the  theologian  supposes,  it  is  probable  there  would 
be  far  more  similarity  in  the  minds  of  men  than  we  find  to 
be  the  case.  The  organizations  perpetually  vaiy,  and 
equally  the  minds  must  ever  be  unlike. 

I  will  also  assume  the  responsibility  of  saying  there  is  no 
proof  in  existence  of  any  deity,  god,  power  or  force  out- 
side of  the  Universe,  and  until  such  proof  is  found  it  ap- 
pears to  be  the  height  of  absurdity  for  theologians  to  per- 
sist in  asserting  that  there  is  such  force  or  deity.  It  may 
be  very  true,  that  **the  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart,  there  is 
no  Qod"  but  h^  is  equally  a  fool  when  he  asserts  dograatic- 
ally,  with  his  lips  or  with  his  pen,  that  there  U  a  God.  All 
the  substance,  the  powers  and  forces,  I  again  repeat,  that 
have  an  existence  belong  to  the  Universe  and  are  parts  of 
it,  and  there  is  not  the  first  particle  of  proof  of  any  supei- 
natural  power  or  of  any  force  superior  to,  or  outside  of 
the  Universe.  All  the  powers  and  forces,  I  said,  that  exist 
to-day  have  ever  existed  in  some  form,  and  there  is  no 
possibility  of  matter  or  force  being  spoken  into  existence 
by  a  power  or  a  person  outside  of  it,  there  is  nothing  above 
It,  there  is  nothing  below  it.  It  embraces  all  substance,  aU 
force,  all  space  and  all  existence,  it  is  the  aU  in  aU.  A 
beginning  of  the  Universe  is  utterly  incomprehensible.  The 
beginning  of  a  god  is  far  less  absurd,  for  we  know  thou- 
sands of  them  have  had  beginnings  and  ends. 

You  say,  **It  is  self-evident  that  somethirhg  must  have 
existed  from  eternity;"  and  I  regard  that  as  one  of  the  most 
sensible  utterances  in  your  entire  letter.  It  seems  the  most 
rational  conclusion  an  intelligent  being  can  come  to.  If  it 
is  true  that  something  cannot  come  from  nothing^  it  is  the 
«nly  conclusion  that  can  be  arrived  at    If,  then,  we  have 


•raa  ttUlfPHRST  BENNETT  DlSCCSSlOir. 


4o3 


got  80  far  along  as  to  understand  that  something  must  have 
existed  from  eternity,  it  is  equally  easy  to  comprehend 
that  aU  matter  or  all  something  has  existed  from  eternity 
If  you  admit  that  anything  has  existed  from  eternity,  it  is 
but  a  step  further—and  a  very  reasonable  one  to  take— to 
conclude  that  everything  has  existed  from  eternity.    It  is 
far  easier  for  the  mind  to  admit  that  everything  has  ever 
existed  than  to  think  that  but  a  part  of  it,  called  Chd,  has 
ever  existed,  and  he  or  it  made  the  remainder  from  nothing. 
You,  as  other  theologians  do,  attach  great  importance  to 
the  design  argument  in  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  God,  and 
perhaps  it  is  the  best  proof  you  have;  but  it  really  amounts 
to  nothing,  for,  you  know.  The  proposition  that  proves  too 
mueh  proves  nothing.    If  the  design  that  is  shown,  or  is  ap- 
parent, in  the  Universe  proves  that  it  was  designed  and 
created,  it  also  proves  that  the  designer,  necessarily  supe- 
rior to  the  Universe  in  every  particular,  and  much  fuller  of 
design  and  wonderful  adaptability— must  likewise  have 
had  a  designer ;  and  then  you  may  imagine  designers  of 
designers  and  creators  of  creators,  until  your  mind  is  bewil- 
dered and  perfectly  lost.    Do  you  not  see  that  when  you 
start  out  with  the  proposition   that  whatever   possesses 
adaptability,  fitness,  design,  potency  and  power  must  have 
had  a  creator  having  all  these  qualities  in  a  superior  degree 
to  the  thing  created,  that  that  creator  must  also  have  had  a 
creator?    And,  reasoning    in  this  way,  where  will  you 
stop?    You  may  go  on  forever  g^etting  up  gods,  creators  of 
universes,  and  gods,  creators  of  gods  I 

There  are  some  things,  or  qualities,  which,  as  you  can 
easily  imagine,  were  never  designed,  were  never  invent- 
ed, never  had  a  beginning.  Among  these  may  be  men- 
tioned time,  space,  the  fact  that  two  units  are  twice  as 
many  as  one,  that  between  two  hills  there  must  be  a  valley, 
that  a  straight  rod  four  feet  long  must  have  two  ends,  that 
a  three-year-old  child  cannot  become  three  years  old  in  a 
minute.    There  are  thousands  of  other  similar  truisms. 


THB  MUMFHRKT-BBNinCTT  MSOUiSIOV. 

which,  you  will  readily  admit,  were  never  "  designed. " 
They  necessarily  have  an  eternal  existence.  So,  in  fact, 
it  is  with  every  truth,  every  principle,  every  fact  in  the 
Universe;  they  were  never  designed,  they  were  never  in- 
vented, they  ever  existed.  You  say,  "the  argument  from 
design  is  absolutely  conclusive.**  Kothing  of  the  kind.  It 
just  proves  nothing  at  all ;  and  the  more  the  operations  of 
the  Universe  are  investigated,  the  more  it  will  be  under- 
fitood,  that  the  Universe  works  to  no  design,  and  operations 
and  events  are  as  they  are,  because  they  can  be  no  other 
way.  You  flippantly  use  the  word  ehanee^  and  insinuate 
that  tlie  Universe  is  a  chance  affair.  Nothing  is  more  ab- 
surd, and  you  ought  to  fully  understand  it.  There  is  no 
chance  in  the  operations  of  the  Universe.  .Causes  and 
effects  are  inevitable  and  unalterable.  There  is  no  ehanee 
about  it.  It  is  your  God  who  is  a  chanee-Qod,  By  chance 
he  took  a  notion  to  make  the  Universe  after  he  had  spent 
an  eternity  in  inactivity;  by  chance  he  made  man  and 
woman  so  that  they  fell  and  spoiled  his  Job  at  the  very  first 
temptation ;  by  chance  he  made  a  devil  that  has  ever  since 
circumvented  him ;  by  chance  he  selected  a  race  of  people 
as  his  special  favorites  whom  he  could  not  control ;  by 
chance  he  made  men  so  sinful  that  he  had  to  drown  out  the 
world ;  by  chance  the  world  got  so  full  of  sin  that  he  was 
obliged  to  to  come  down  himself  to  earth  and  bo  crucified 
to  appease  his  own  anger,  and  by  chance  he  has  miserably 
managed  all  his  complicated  affairs  ever  since.  Talk  no 
more  about  eliance,  unless  it  is  in  connection  with  your 
own  chance-God. 

If  you  can  comprehend  the  truth  that  there  are  natural 
causes  only,  and  that  every  event  that  has  ever  taken  place 
was  the  result  of  a  natural  cause  sufficient  to  produce  it» 
you  will  be  able  to  understand  not  only  that  no  supernat- 
ural cause  or  causes  are  necessary,  but  that  a  design  waa 
also  out  of  the  question. 

Tou  imagine  you  see  in  every  form  of  life  mn  intrieate 


THE   U UMFHBBT-BBKXETT  DISCUSSION.  451 

design,  but  it  is  in  imagination  only.  Every  production  of 
the  Universe,  as  I  said,  has  been  the  result  of  natural  causes 
and  not  of  supernatural  causes.  Every  organ  and  function 
of  the  animal  kingdom  has  resulted  from  the  forces  of 
nature  and  the  environments  of  the  animal.  Take  the 
organ  of  the  eye  for  instance.  It  is  an  intricate  piece  of 
machinery,  and  probably  shows  as  great  a  degree  of  design 

1  ?w^r^  "''  '^''''°''-  ^"*  distinguished  biologists  tell 
us  that  the  eye  is  wholly  the  result  of  natural  causes,  and 
^B  produced  by  the  rays  of  the  sun  in  connection  with  a 
per^e  nervous  system.  All  animals  with  comparatively 
pe  ect  nervous  systems  and  who  live  in  the  sunshine  havl 
tyes  more  or  less  perfectly  developed.    Such  animals  as 

tZZZT  '^'''"  "  ''''  permanently  Where  there 

no  sunhght  have  no  eyes.    In  the  lower  forms  of  animal 

life  the  eye  was  preceded  by  prehensiles  or  feelers  which 

acted  m  part  as  eyes.   In  the  evolution  of  animal  life,  and  by 

shortened  and  perfected  until  a  perfect  eye  was  produced 
It  was  the  natural  forces  which  produced  this  change  and 
not  the  #M;wnatural.  ^"»"ge,  ana 

fromlZtr""":  ^'*'  ''  *°'°^''^  ^^^  ^^P*  permanently 
come  atrophied,  paralyzed,  or  useless,  and  the  eve  is 
mothT'  '  W'  ""  ^'  ^'^  '«^^«  '^^'^  ^--  the  Mam. 

ei'Td"  ^^^^^^^^^  ^™^-  ^^^y  ^«d 

lont  J  1-r  "*'^°^"-  T''«y  ^^  spots  OD  the  head  that 
ll  nd  J       ''";  '"'  """^  "*"'  "°*  '''^■'  '•">  «»•>  --  a 

«posed  to".."  "  "l  *'"  """•  ^'"'°  "-"  «*  -- 
eve  WH,        .     r*  °'  ""  '""  ^°^«°  "tended  time  the 

TUerrw.f  '  ''""'""'^  ""''  "'''  "'^"^^  "Produced, 

the  o  iZr '"r""'""''  P"''''^  "ere,  no  God;  neither  in 

.3 tt^e  other.    *'  ^""  ""  ""'"• '°  '*°  ''"> '' '»  -«  -«« 
Tou  doubtleM  haye  read  of  tho  ca^es  of  the  unfortunate 


4^3 


THB  nuia*nRST-DfiNXBTT  OlSCViShiWh 


«• 


▼ictims  of  religious  persecution  which  Napoleon's  army  set 
At  liberty  from  the  Roman  Inquisition*  Some  of  them  had 
been  kept  in  dungeons  and  dark  prisons  for  thirty  or  forty 
years,  during  which  their  organizations  had  slowly  adapted 
themselves  to  surrounding  conditions,  and  they  could  see  a 
little  in  the  darkness  of  their  confinement,  but  when 
brought  into  the  full  light  of  the  sun  the  rays  were  too 
powerful  and  they  were  made  utterly  blind.  Now,  God 
had  just  as  much  to  do  with  destroying  their  tight  as  he 
had  with  immuring  them  in  the  dungeons  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, and  he  had  as  much  to  do  with  that  as  he  bad  with 
desip;niQg  their  eyes.  Very  much  is  laid  to  his  charge  that 
he  is  just  as  innocent  of  as  are  you  and  I. 

Nearly  a  century  ago  James  Button  of  Scotland,  a  gen- 
tleman of  deep  reasoning,  and  a  member,  by  the  by,  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  gave  much  thought  and  attention  to 
the  secondary  rocks.  He  was  the  first  to  advance  the  the- 
ory that  rocks  were  formed  ander  the  ocean  where  the  great 
weight  of  the  water  prevented  the  volatile  portions  from 
escaping  from  the  effects  of  the  great  heat  which  prevailed 
there,  and  that  from  the  combined  igneous  and  aqueous 
agencies  the  secondary  rocks  were  produced,  long  before 
man  existed  on  the  earth.  The  theory  startled  Europe  and 
it  was  soon  discovered  that  Button  had  unwittingly  dis- 
posed of  Qod  and  made  the  Universe  perform  what  had 
been  attributed  to  God.  The  theory  was  so  damaging  to 
theology  that  Button  was  thrown  into  disgrace.  His  wife 
left  him  because  he  was  an  Atheist.  The  Church  and  his 
friends  discarded  him.  Like  a  hero,  however,  he  retained 
his  views,  but  undoubtedly  the  severe  frigidity  with  which 
he  was  treated  shortened  his  days.  But  after  his  death, 
James  Ball,  a  chemist,  made  a  series  of  experiments  with 
his  crucible  and  retort  anti  demonstrated  beyond  doubt 
that  Button  was  correct.  Though  the  rocks  were  subject- 
ed to  ever  so  high  a  heat,  If  the  gaseous  parts  were  by 
pressure  prevented,  frooi .escaping,  a  new. union  would  take 


M»  HTDMFHBKY-BKJUnfTT  DUICUSSJOK. 


488. 


place,  with  marble  and  other  rocks  as  the  result.  Button's 
speculations  have  ripened  into  a  settled  scientific  theory,  and 
his  views  are  accepted  by  all  the  learned  scientists  of  the 
day,  though  they  entirely  dispense  with  the  services  of  a 
god  informing  the  rocks  which  compose  the  crust  of  the 
earth.  The  more  scientists'  investigate  these  subjects,  the 
more  do  they  find  natural  causes  equal  to  all  emergencies 
and  that  there  is  no  room  for  a  God  in  the  Universe,  and 
krothing  for  him  to  do. 

With  Tyndall  I  believe  the  Unlverse-or  matter-pos- 
sesses  all  the  power  and  potencies  to  perform  all  the  results 
that  take  place,  and  that  no  outside  agency  is  necessary  or 
possible.  In  this  regard  you  wrong  Tyndall  and  others. 
Be  behevec  in  no  supernatural  God  that  is  in  opposition  to 
the  laws  of  the  Universe,  and  operates  outside  of  or  above 
them.  There  is  hardly  a  first-class  scientist  of  the  day 
who  believes  in  a  power,  force  or  deity  without  the  Uni- 
verse. They  believe  that  the  Universe  contains  all  the 
substance  and  all  the  forces  that  have  an  existence.  ^ 

You  speak  some  three  different  times  about  the  ape  being 
an  Atheist,  and  assume  that  the  nearer  a  man  is  to  an  ape 
the  more  likely  he  is  to  be  an  Atheist.    As  usual,  you  are 
entirely  wrc^ug.    You  know  nothing  about  the  ape  being  an 
Atheist.    Be  probably  neither  believes  in  a  God  nor  disbe- 
lieves in  one.    But  this  we  do  know,  the  farther  back  we 
trace  man  to  his  primitive  condition,  but  a  remove  from 
the  animal  kingdom,  the  more  we  find  he  believed  in  gods. 
Be  located  bad  gods  and  good  gods  in  every  department  of 
Natare-in  the  storm,  in  the  lightning,  in  the  winds,  in  the 
heat,  in  the  cold,  in  light  and  in  darkness,  and  in  every 
clement  and  condition,  but  as  he  has  advanced  in  civiliza- 
t'on  and  intelligence,  his  gods  have  grown  fewer  and  thin- 
nor,  and  at  length  his  God  has  become  so  attenuated  and 
etherial  that  he  is  wholly  intangible  and  impalpable,  and 
the  nearer  he  comes  to  nothing  ataUand  nowhere  the  better 
H  is  for  all  concerned.    When  a  superstitious  man  becomes 


4  I 


^■-i-. 


404 


TH»  HUMPHRKT-BBimETT  DlSCUSaiOlT. 


I 


Wholly  emancipated  from  supernatural  gods,  he  wUl  liave 
more  time  and  freedom  to  study  the  laws  of  the  Uciverse 
and  to  learn  vastly  more  from  real  facts  than  he  can  ever 
know  from  all  the  myths  aud  invented  gods  that  the  world 
has  ever  been  cursed  with.  Your  talk  about  *•  inquiring  at 
the  office."  aud  the  necessity  of  "  consulting  the  Divine 
Scriptures  "  if  we  would  be  admitted  into  the  inner  courts 
of  nature,  is  mere  theological  twaddle.  There  is  nothing 
in  it  whatever. 

It  makes  but  little  diflfetence  what  men  who  have  pre- 
ceded  us  have  believed  upon  the  subject  of  deity.  Their  light 
upon  this  subject  was  in  proportion  to  their  degree  of  Intel- 
lectual  development.    Those  who  lived  fifty  and  one  hun- 
dred  years  ago  were  no  guides  for  you  and  me  to  be  gov- 
erned  by.    We  must  investigate  and  decide  for  ourselves, 
draw  our  own  conclusions,  and  be  guided  by  our  own  con- 
▼ictions.    Of  one  thing  I  feel  fully  assured;  and  that  is, 
.that  no  man  who  has  lived  in  years  that  are  passed,  or  is 
alive  at  the  present  time,  has  ever  been  able  to  find  a  sub- 
stance, a  power  or  force  outside  or  Independent  of  the 
Universe,  and  when  they  have  thought  that  they  believed  in 
a  god,  amorphous  or  anthropomorphic,  they  have  entered 
entirely  into  the  field  of  conjecture  and  speculation. 

I  am  well  aware  that  men  have  devised  Brahma,  Or- 
muzd.  Fohi,  Osiris.  Milhra.  Indra.  Baal,  Zeus.  Jupiter, 
Odin.  Thor.  Jehovah,  Allah,  Mumbo  Jumbo,  and  countless 
other  gods  of  more  or  less  reputation,  but  I  believe  them 
all  to  be  figments  of  the  human  brain,  having  no  existence 
in  any  other  locality.  I  have  about  the  same  respect  for 
any  one  as  I  have  for  the  others  and  as  much  fear  of  one  as 
of  the  others.  There  is  just  as  much  proof  that  the  African 
Mumbo  Jumbo  was  the  author  of  the  Universe  as  that  the 
Asiatic  Jehovah  was.  Every  nation  and  every  man  has  a 
light  to  get  up  a  god  of  his  own.  and  this  right  has  been 
very  extensively  exercised  ;  and.  as  I  said  in  my  last  reply 
no  two  gods  thus  i^nufactured  agree  in  all  particulars,  ' 


tBE  mWFHBET-BBNKKTT  MSCUSSIOH.  4g$ 

In  closing  let  me  say,  I  revere  the  glorious  Universe, 
with  all  Its  powers,  potencies,  and  possibilities,  some  parts 
of  which  we  can  all  see,  (and  of  which  we  are  infiniresimal 
fractions.)  far  more  than  an  ideal  something  or  nothing 
which  no  man  has  ever  seen,  never  can  see,  knows  nothing 
•bout  and  never  can  know  anything  about.    Yes,  I  venerate 
the  grand,  infinite,  powerful,  ever-prevalent  Universe  far 
more  than  I  do  the  old  Jewish  divinity  who.  as  has  been 
quHintly  described,  was  -one  who  raised  up  enemies  that 
he  nyght  conquer  them-made  promises  that  he  might 
break  them-caused  moral  diseases  that  he  might  cure  them 
--who  permitted  his  favorite  people  to  go  after  other  gods 
that  he  might  butcher  them.    A  God  who  i^  before  time 
^as;  cogitated  before  there  was  anything  to  cogitate  about- 
who  made  the  Universe  before  there  was  anything  to  make 
it  of   and  did  before  there  was  anything  to  do.    A  God 
who  formed  man  in  his  own  image,  though  his  own  image 
had  n.  form;  created  an  author  of  evil,  though  not  himself 
the  author  of  any  evil;  who  caused  his  children  to  commit 
the  most  abominable  crimes,  and  suffer  the  intensest  ago- 
nies, though  not  himself  the  cause  of  either  criminalit/or 
agony.    A  God  who  saw  the  work  he  had  performed  was 
jery  good,  yet  presently  discovered  that  it  was  very  bad- 
foreknew  that  man  would  sin.  yet  was  indignantly  aston- 
ished that  he  did  sin;  foreknew  that  the  forbidden  fruit 
would  be  eaten,  yet  damned  the  whole  human  race  because 
i'^  was  eaten.    A  God  who,  though  always  in  all  places, 
occasionally  came  down  from  heaven  just  to  see  how  the 
world  wagged;  though  always  of  the  same  opinion,  occa- 
sions ly  changed  his  mind  ;  though  in  good  temper  fre- 
CI  moiIy  got  into  a  towering  passion;  though  always  merci. 
ul  to  perfection,  yet  often  murdered  millions  of  innocent 
bunmn  beings;  and  though  without  parts,  upon  a  particular 
mori  showed  his  back  parts,  and  on  another  occasion 
hi>  full  figure  to  some  seventy-five  men. 
"A  God  80  deceptive  as  to  send  upon  his  people  "strong 


I 


» 


f«l 


4H  WB  ■raFHRXT'-BXllR KTT  oWOWSUfM, 

delnrioBi  **  tbat  tliej  migrbt  believe  a  lie,  so  rerj  silly  as  ta 
niffer  himself  to  be  checkmated  by  the  Devil,  and  so  fero- 
ciously cruel  tliat  no  human  tyrant  could  ever  equal  hfm  lir 
monstrous  severity  and  vengeance.  A  Qod  whose  presence 
would  make  a  hell  of  heaven  ;  whose  virtues  are  vices  (Ex, 
XX.  5),  whose  reason  would  disgrace  on  idiot  (Ex.  xxi,  21  )r 
whose  laws  would  shock  a  savage  (Num.  xv,  81-35),  whose 
fickleness  provokes  derision  (Jer.  xv,  6),  and  whose  whole 
character  is  a  horrible  compound,  an  •*  intense  concentra- 
tion "  of  tlie  worst  vices  which  have  stained  the  worst 
human  natures  (Ex.  xxxii,  27  ;  Eaek.  xiv,  9-;  1  Kings,  xxii, 
21, 22).  •*  He  is  the  all- wise  being  who  made  man  upright, 
bat  could  not  keep  him  so  ;  made  the  Devil,  but  could  not 
control  him  ;  made  all  things  pure,  yet  could  not  preserve 
them  from  corruption  ;  who  doomed  countless  millions  fov 
the  innocent  error  of  an  individual ;  destroyed  by  the  Del- 
uge every  living  soul  because  of  their  wickedness,  except 
three  pair,  who  begat  a  second  race  as  wicked  as  the  first ; 
provided  an  eternal  heaven  for  the  fools  who  accept,  and  an 
eternal  hell  for  the  wise  who  reject  his  •  holy  Gospel';  wha 
after  begetting  himself  upon  somebody  else,  sent  himself 
to  be  mediator  between  himself  and  everybody  else  ;  after 
being  derided,  spurned,  cursed,  hated,  laughed  at,  scourged^ 
•nd  nailed  to  the  eross,  got  himself  decently  buried  as  pre* 
liminary  to  mounting  once  more  to  the  right  hand  of  him- 
self, from  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead,  when  there  shall  be  neither  quick  nor  dead.  Whose 
history  should  be  written  in  blood,  for  indeed  it  is  a  bloody 
history;  whole  name  inspires  disgust,  for  it  is  the  name  of 
an  imaginary  fiend,  and  whose  religion  should  be  univeri- 
ally  execrated,  for  it  is  the  religion  of  horror." 

I  have  thus  given  a  dim  picture  of  the  Qod  of  the  Jews, 
the  CM  of  the  Christians,  the  €k>d  of  the  Rev.  G.  H.  Dum- 
phrey;  but  not  the  Ck>d  of  I>.  M.  Bennett.  You  deem  it  ft 
great  virtue  to  believe  in  your  god  and  a  great  sin  to  believe 
ift  mine,    ^ke  thousaadi  of  oUmf  theologians,  you  heaf 


4m 

odium  upon  me  because  I  cannot  believe  in  your  vengeful 
personal  God,  a  personal  devil,  a  burning  hell,  and  all  the 
other  miserable  theological  rubbish  of  which  your  system 
is  composed,  but  I  cannot  help  it.    I  must  believe  in  that 
which  seems  roasonable  and  truthful  to  me,  and  can  only 
wonder  how  you  can  accept  that  old  Jewish  monstrosity 
whose  portrait  is  feebly  portrayed  above.  I  esteem  my  god 
tiie  Universe,  as  much  superior,  in  every  sense  of  the  word* 
to  the  fickle  tutelary  god  of  the  Jews  as  the  glorious  sun 
that  Illuminates  the  entire  solar  system  is  brighter  that 
the  tiny  lightning-bug.   You  go  on,  if  you  choose,  in  still  be- 
heving  your  absurd  superstitions,  myths  and  fables.     1  can 
afford  to  wait  patiently  for  the  steady  advance  of  truth 
and  the  further  appreciation  of  the  operations  of  the  grand 
Universe.    I  am  satisfied  the  time  is  surely  coming  when 
few  sensible  men  will  entertain  the  crude  opinions  you 
still  persistently  hug  to  your  bosom,  and  when  the  truths 
of  nature  and  reason  will  far  transcend  all  belief  in  gods 
devils,  holy  ghosts,  virgin-mothers,  fatherless  sons,  and 
every  fable  and  myth  of  which  theology  is  composed. 
Begging  pardon  for  detaining  you  so  long,  I  remain^ 

Sincerely  yours,  D.  M.  Bbmnbtt. 


MR.     HVMPHAST. 

D.  M.  Bennett,  Dear  Sir:  Your  disquisition  on  Athe- 
Ism  IS  a  mixed  mixture  of  theoretical  errors  with  his- 
torical blunders.  You  have  epitomized  Bttchner  pretty 
well ;  but  do  you  not  know  that  Dr.  Bttchner  is  only 
a  second  rate  man  among  the  thinkers  of  Germany? 
He  has  done  but  little  more  for  philosophy  in  that  coun- 
try  than  Ingersoll  has  done  for  jurisprudence,  science, 
emancipation,  and  Union  in  this.  Perhaps  -Dr."  is  as 
becoming  a  title  fot  one  who  has  added  4M)thing  to  the  sum- 


total  of  Bcientiflc  knowledge,  as  "Colonel** is  for  a  maa 
who  was  not  heard  of  until  mfter  the  War.  You  go  out  of 
your  way  to  expatiate  on  Chanu.  Of  course,  you  did  not 
remember  that  this  word  was  first  introduced  into  phi- 
losophy by  the  atheistic  Democritus,  the  father  of  the  atom- 
istic theory.  You  must  have  been  speaking  at  random  when 
you  said  that  I  **  wronged  Tyodall  and  others.'*  I  am  pre- 
pared to  S|ky  that  the  " first-class  scientists  of  the  day"  do 
**  believe  in  a  power,  force,  or  deity  without  the  Universe," 

The  late  Agassli  was  a  religious  man.  Perhaps  yoa 
remember  that  he  opened  his  iSchool  of  natural  history,  on 
Penikese  Island,  with  prayer. 

Principal  Dawson,  the  leading  geologist  of  Canada, 
believes  in  the  Bible  as  firmly  as  in  the  white  marble  layers 
of  the  earth's  crust.  He  has  written  several  books  to  rec- 
oncile Scripture  and  science. 

Prof.  James  D.  Dana,  of  Yale,  accepts  the  records  of 
Genesis  as  implicitly  as  those  of  Oeology. 

Dr.  Asa  Gray,  the  great  botanist,  concludes  his  Address 
l>efore  "The  American  Association  for  the  Advancement 
of  Science,"  1872,  as  follows:  *'  Iiet  us  hope,  and  I  confi- 
dently expect,  that  it  is  not  to  last ;  that  the  religious  faith 
which  survived  without  a  shock  the  notion  of  the  fixedness 
of  the  earth  itself,  may  equally  outlast  the  notion  of  the 
absolute  fixedness  of  the  species  which  inhabit  it ;  that  in 
the  future,  even  more  than  in  the  past,  faith  in  order^  which 
is  the  basis  of  science,  will  not — as  it  cannot  reasonably — 
be  dissevered  from  faith  in  an  Ordainer,  which  is  the  basis 
of  religion.** 

Daniel  Kirkwood,  the  eminent  mathematical  discoverer, 
believes  in  a  personal  Qod  and  in  an  exalted  Christ. 

Prof.  Marsh,  whom  Huxley  complimented  in  his  Chick- 
ering  Hall  Lectures,  is  a  very  firm  believer  in  a  living  Ood. 

The  Doke  of  Argyll,  who  is  no  mean  scientist,  is  mn 
orthodox  Christian  (See  his  Reign  of  Law). 

Janet  stands  among  the  first  philosophers  of  France;  but 


THE  HUMFHBBT-BBNNBTT  DISCUBSIOir. 

he  has  written  a  book  expressly  to  combat  Bilchner's  teach- 
ings. 

Prof.  Owen  is  perhaps  the  first  comparative  anatomist  of 
the  age;  but  it  is  well  known  that  he  has  no  sympathy 
with  atiieistic  materialism.  -^    i-      j 

Mivart  is  a  thorough  Theist,  as  his  late  work  on  Evolution 
shows. 

Sir  Wm.  Thomson  says:  "Overpowering  proof  of  intel- 
ligence and  I)enevolent  design  lie  all  around  us,  and  if  ever 
perplexities,  whether  metaphysical  or  scientific,  turn  us 
away  from  them  for  a  time,  they  come  back  to  us  with 
irresutible  force,  showing  to  us  through  nature  the  influ- 
ence of  a  free  will,  and  teaching  us  that  all  living  beines 
depend  upon  one  ever-acting  Creator  and  Ruler"  (Addr^s 
More  the  British  Association  at  Ito  meeting  in  Edinburgh, 

Dr.  \Vm.  B.  Carpenter  has  penned  such  sentiments  as  Qie 
fMlowiDg:  "  The  Immutability  of  the  Divine  Nature  is  no- 
where more  clearly  manifested  than  in  the  continuance  of  th« 
*amemodt<,faeCion-not  merely  tbrongh  the  limited  period 
of  Human  experience,  but.  ae  we  have  now  strong  reason 
to  bel,eve(on  Scientific  grounds  alone),  from  the  commence- 
ment  of  the  present  system  of  the  Universe-which  enables 
US  to  discern  somewhat  of  the  Plan  on  which  the  Creator 
has  acted,  and  is  sUU  acting."    "A  deeper  scrutiny  has 
shown  us  that  the  Man  of  Science  cannot  dispense  with  the 
notion  ot  a  Power  always  working  throughout  the  Mechan- 
sm  oahe  Universe;  and  that  on  scientific  grounds  alone, 
this  Power  may  be  regarded  as  the  expression  of  Mind" 
(Mental  Physiology,  N.  Y.,  1875,  pp.  4S8,  691-708). 

R.  A.  Proctor  is  certainly  no  Atheist.  His  first  scries  of 
Astronomical  Lectures  in  this  country  was  delivered  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  of 
«ew  York.  I  find  his  works  full  of  recognition  of  an 
Almighty  God  (See  his  Our  Place  among  Infinities,  N. 
Y.,  1875,  pp.  84.  88.  39.  48,  44.  818,  etc.).    In  his  last  Lee- 


«ro 


tan  in  A-ssociation  Hall,  New  York,  delivered  Oct.  22, 
1873,  he  said:  «*Inasmach  as  the  work  is  a  study  of  sci- 
ence—  that  is  to  say,  a  knowledge  of  the  works  and 
ways  of  God— it  cannot  but  lead  to  higher  ideas  of  the 
wisdom  and  omniscience  of  the  Almighty.'* 

If  Tyndall  is  not  a  professed  Theist,  in  the  accepted 
sense  of  that  word,  neither  is  he  an  Atheist.  His  works 
betray  a  deeper  belief  in  God  than  he  is  willing  to  avow  in 
words.  He  nowhere  asserts  that  Matter  and  only  Matter 
exists,  or  that  mere  Force  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
existence  and  condition  of  the  Universe.  In  answer  to 
Napoleon's  question,  "Who  made  all  these ?*•  he  says: 
'•That  question  remains  unanswered,  and  science  makes 
no  attempt  to  answer  it.  .  .  Science  is  mute  in  reply  to 
these  questions.  But  if  the  materialist  is  confounded  and 
science  rendered  dumb,  who  else  is  prepared  with  a  solu- 
tion? To  whom  has  this  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed  f 
Let  us  lower  our  heads  and  acknowledge  our  ignorance, 
priest  and  philosopher,  one  and  all.  .  .  Tou  never  hear  the 
really  philosophical  defenders  of  the  doctrine  of  Uniformity 
speaking  of  impossibilities  in  Nature.  They  never  say,  what 
they  are  so  constantly  charged  with  saying,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible for  the  Builder  of  the  universe  to  alter  His  work.  . 
.  .  They  have  as  little  fellowship  with  the  atheist  who 
says  there  is  no  God,  as  with 'the  theist  who  professes  to 
know  the  will  of  God"  (Fragments  of  Science,  N.  Y., 
1672,  pp.  93, 121, 162).  In  his  famous  Belfast  Address  he 
implies  that  Matter  had  '*a  Creator**;  asserts  that  "  physi- 
cal science  cannot  cover  all  the  demands  of  his  (man*s) 
nature  ";  and  declares  that  **  the  whole  process  of  evolution 
is  the  manifestation  of  a  Power  absolutely  inscrutable  to 
the  intellect  of  man.  As  little  in  our  day  as  in  the  days 
of  Job  can  man.  by  searching,  find  this  Power  ouf* 

J.  Stuart  Mill  said  in  the  **  general  result*'  of  his  discus- 
sion of  Theism,  that  *'  the  indication  given  by  such  evi* 
dence  as  there  is,  poinU  to  the  creation,  not  indeed  of  Uf 


WKM  HUMPHRBT-BISNKBTT  DISOUSBIOir. 


411 


universe,  but  of  the  present  order  of  it,  t^  on  InUHligeni 
Mindf  whose  power  over  the  materials  was  not  absolute, 
whose  love  for  his  creatures  was  not  his  sole  actuating  in- 
ducement, but  who  nevertheless  desired  their  good** 
(Three  Essays  on  Religion.    N.  Y.,  1874,  p.  242). 

Like  Tyndall,  Herbert  Spencer  stoutly  contends  that  he 
is  neither  a  Pantheist  nor  an  Atheist.  True,  he  would  not 
^all  himself  a  Theist ;  but  he  attributes  the  origin  of  the 
CTniverse  to  an  ^'Unknown  Reality."  He  says  that  *'if 
science  and  religion  are  to  be  reconciled,  the  basis  of  reo- 
-onciliation  must  be  this  deepest,  widest  and  most  certidA 
•of  all  facts,— that  the  Power  which  the  universe  manifests 
Is  utterly  inscrutable  *' (First  Princioles  of  a  New  System 
of  Philosophy,  N.  Y.,  1869,  p.  46). 

Mr.  Darwin  is  not  so  vague  or  **  inscrutable.**  He  is  in 
410  sense  an  Atheist.  He  admits  the  agency  of  a  First 
Oause  in  a  personal  Creator.  In  the  conclusion  of  hit 
^*' Origin  of  Species**  he  says  :  **  I  see  no  good  reason  why 
the  views  given  in  this  volume  should  shock  the  religious 
*f  eelings  of  any  one.  .  .  .  Authors  of  the  highest  eminence 
^seem  to  be  fully  satisfied  with  the  view  that  each  species 
iias  been  independently  «r«ifo({.  To  my  mind  it  accords 
Ixitter  with  what  we  know  of  the  laioe  impressed  on  matter 
ity  the  CresXoT^  that  the  production  and  extinction  of  the 
past  and  present  inhabitants  of  the  world  should  have  been 
••due  to  secondary  causes,  like  those  determining  the  birtk 
«nd  death  of  the  individual.  .  .  .  There  is  grandeur  ia 
this  view  of  life,  with  its  several  powers,  having  been  orig» 
indUy  breatfied  by  tlie  Creator  into  a  few  forme  or  into  one  ** 
<N.Y.,  1873,  pp.  421428-9). 

I  trust  you  will  not  misunderstand  me.  I  do  not  say  that 
these  men  all  believe  in  God  in  the  same  sense  that  a 
Christian  does.  I  only  hold  that  none  of  them  deny  Hie 
existence  of  God;  hence,  they  we  not  Aiheists. 

It  is  true  that  little  imitators  have  tried  to  deduce  Athe- 
ism  from   their  philosophy,  and   some  Christians  have 


eharged  it  with  that  tendency.  How  prone  men  are  to  take 
an  ell  where  they  get  an  incli !  In  the  same  way  Calvin- 
ism  has  been  confounded  with  Fatalism,  and  Liberty  with 
License.  We  are  to  judge  of  the  opinions  of  these  men 
only  from  their  own  words. 

Tour  notion  of  the  Universe  rests  on  an  assumption, 
which,  as  the  preceding  extracts  show,  the  **  first-class  sci- 
entists of  the  day"  regard  as  utterly  inadmissible.  No  theory 
that  exclndes  contrivance  and  design  from  the  world  can 
possibly  account  for  all  its  phenomena.  Blind  force 
could  never  contrive  such  wonderful  wmperiMtioni  and  eor- 
re9pand$ne$8  as  Nature  exhibits.  Mindless  matter  could 
not  produce  axmh  proapecHve  arrangements  as  often  meet 
our  eyes.  There  is  nothing  in  the  condition  of  an  unborn 
infant  calculated  to  provide  milk  for  it  when  bora.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  life-germ  of  an  egg  that  could  conceivably 
furnith  itself  beforehand  with  the  yolk-food  necessary  to  its 
nourishment  previously  to  hatching.  The  same  remark 
will  apply  to  the  seeds  of  plants.  There  is  a  propJietie  ele- 
ment in  Nature  that  can  not  be  explained  without  refer- 
ence to  a  designing  Mind.  The  words  of  the  psalmist  and 
the  prophet  are  at  once  more  sublime  and  more  true  than 
the  dogmatic  deliverances  of  atheistic  Materialists :  '*  The 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God;  and  the  firmament 
showeth  bis  handiwork.  Day  unto  day  uttered  speech^ 
and  night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge  '*  (Ps,  xix,  1,  2). 
*'Lift  up  your  eyes  on  high,  and  behold  who  hath  created 
these  things,  that  bringeth  out  their  hoot  by  number:  he 
ealleth  them  all  by  names  by  the  greatness  of  his  might, 
for  that  he  is  strong  in  power;  not  one  failcth  *'  (Is.  xl,  26). 

Your  last  Reply  bristles  with  distortions,  garblings,  half- 
truth;<,  and  untruths.  No  Christian  believes  the  Bible  ia 
the  sense  you  attribute  to  it 

Tou  speak  of  all  the  Biblical  writers  as  ** unknown.** 
They  were  not  more  unknown  than  other  classic  authors. 
This  species  of  "  criticism  "  has  been  applied  to  other  than 


THE  HUMPSRBT-BB^NETT  DISCUSSIOH. 


478 


Scriptural  writers.  It  has  been  maintained  that  there 
never  was  such  a  man  as  Homer,  and  that  the  Diad  is  only 
a  compilation  of  floating  rhapsodies.  It  has  been  held  that 
the  histories  of  Herodotus  are  the  work  of  a  later  hantl.  It 
has  been  argued  that  **Shakspeare"  was  none  other  than 
Lord  Bacon.  Some  Catholic  "critics"  have  ascribed  the 
Roman  classics  to  the  monks  of  the  Middle  Ages.  These 
notions  are  generally  regarded  only  as  erudite  absurdities. 
li  is  the  conviction  of  mankind  that  the  ancient  classics  are 
really  the  compositions  of  the  men  to  whom  they  have 
always  been  ascribed.  On  the  same  principle,  it  is  believed 
that  the  books  of  the  Bible  were  written  by  those  whose 
names  they  have  ever  borne. 

As  to  those  books  that  are  anonymous,  they  are  trust- 
worthy, because  the  Jewish  nation,  from  the  very  first, 
received  them  as  authentic,  and  because  their  historical 
contents  are  attested  by  collateral  records,  while  their 
didactic  portions  carry  their  own  recommendation.  Such 
pastorals  as  Ruth  and  Esther,  and  such  lyrics  as  the  name- 
less Psalms  could  have  no  more  intrinsic  value  from  the 
names  of  their  authors.  Like  Junius*  Letters,  or  the 
"Nebular  Hypothesis,"  they  rest  entirely  on  their  own 
internal  character.  Legal  documents  that  have  been  ap- 
proved by  the  court,  and  duly  filed,  continue  authentic 
forever,  though  the  names  of  the  clerks  who  wrote  them 
may  not  be  known.  The  tune  of  *'  Old  Hundred  "  is  not  a 
whit  less  precious  because  its  composer  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained. 

You  put  the  formation  of  the  Canon  entirely  too  late. 
Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  is  certainly  Rationalistic  and  scbol- 
arly  enough  to  suit  you.  Some  of  his  statements  are 
extravagant,  and,  like  all  his  later  writings,  Germanolatroua. 
But  he  was  compelled  to  admit  that  t?ie  ten  toords  proceeded 
from  Moses  himself;  that  the  song  of  Deborah,  the  Psalmi 
of  David,  and  the  odea  of  Solomon,  were  genuine;  that 
Eara  edited  the  Pentateuch;  that  the  prophets  were  included 


'i74 


SmfFHBBT-BBSMVR 


in  tbe  completed  Canon;  and  that  the  New  Tettament  was 
received  as  an  infallible  gnide  before  the  close  of  the  second 
centary  (The  Canon  of  the  Bible,  London,  1877,  pp.  5, 0-11, 
85.  etc.).  The  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
known  as  the  Sepiuofjini,  was  made  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
third  centary  before  Christ  From  this  we  see  that  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  were  at  that  time  already  compiled  and 
received  by  the  nation.  That  the  Kew  Testament  Canon 
was  collected  at  an  early  date  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  it 
contains  no  rudiments  of  the  Bomish  corruptions  that  began 
to  develop  so  soon,  and  are  so  manifest  in  the  Apocryphal 
Kew  Testament,  such  as  Mariolatry,  transubstantiation, 
pontifical  supremacy,  etc.  When  we  remember  that  the 
books  constituting  the  Canon  were  included  in  it  because 
IA<y  fuMd  alwaif8  been  authoritative,  we  feel  at  once  that  there 
is  no  real  difficulty  in  this  matter  (See  art  "  Canon,"  in 
Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible). 

You  seem  to  be  possessed  by  the  "strong  delusion**  that 
the  ancient  Jews  offered  human  sacrifices.  Tou  mis* 
understand  Lev.  zzvii,  29.  That  verse  only  says  that 
everything  devoted  of  men  shall  not  be  redeemed;  but  shall 
surely  be  put  to  death.  Hoses  certainly  would  not  so  stul- 
tify himself  as  to  make  a  thing  lawful  in  one  place  that  he 
had  prohibited  elsewhere.  Kitto  says  on  this  subject :  *  It  is 
under  these  circumstances  (the  prevalence  of  human  sacri- 
fices) a  striking  fact  that  the  Hebrew  religion,  even  in  ita 
most  rudimental  condition,  should  be  free  from  the  con- 
tamination of  human  sacrifices.  The  case  of  Isaac  and  that 
of  Jephthah's  daughter  cannot  impair  the  general  truth,  that 
the  offering  of  human  beings  is  neither  enjoined,  allowed, 
nor  practiced  in  the  Biblical  records.  On  the  contrary, 
such  an  offering  is  strictly  prohibited  by  Moses,  as  adverse 
to  the  will  of  God,  and  an  abomination  of  the  heathen** 
(Cyclopedia  of  Biblical  Literature,  article  ''Sacrifice, 
Human  *')• 

The  Bible  is  n4d  *'  an  advoeala  ^n^  ttwtttMW't^r  '*  of  tMrnniM, 


TBS  mJMPHRET-BENNETT  DISCUSilDV. 

It  is  not  its  fault  if  interested  men  have  so  misconstrued  it 
The  Hebrews  were  taught  to  rebel  against  the  inhuman 
Pharaoh.  They  were  forbidden  to  "  rule  one  over  another 
with  rigor**  (Lev.  xxv,  43,  46.  53).  The  Jewish  kings 
were  reproved  for  oppressing  the  people  (2  Chron.  xvi,  10). 
The  Old  Testament  is  so  far  from  advocatiog  the  cause  of 
monarchs— to  say  nothing  of  tyrants— that  ihe  Israelites 
were  censured  for  demanding  a  king  (1  Sam.  viii.).  Jahn 
describes  the  character  of  the  Jewish  Commonwealth  as 
f<^lows:  *'  From  the  circumstance,  that  the  people  possessed 
so  much  influence,  as  to  render  it  necessary  to  submit  laws 
to  them  for  ratification,  and  that  they  even  took  it  on  them- 
selves sometimes  to  propose  laws,  or  to  resist  those  which 
were  enacted^  from  the  circumstance  also,  that  the  legis- 
lature of  the  nation  had  not  the  power  of  laying  taxes,  and 
that  the  civil  code  was  regulated  and  enforced  by  God  him- 
self, independently  of  the  legislature,  Lowman  and  John 
David  Michaelis  are  in  favor  of  considering  the  Hebrew 
government  a  Democracy,  .  .  The  Hebrew  government, 
putting  out  of  view  its  theocratic  features,  was  of  a  mixed 
form,  in  some  respects  approaching  to  a  democracy,  in 
others  assuming  more  of  an  aristocratical  character'* 
<ArcbeoIogy.  Sect  219).  Thus,  the  Bible  gives  no  color 
of  sanction  to  tyranny.  It  enjoins  submission  to  kings  as 
the  best  course  to  pursue  where  those  kings  "rule  in  right- 
eousness.'* It  says  we  had  better  sometimes  bear  the  ills 
we  have  tban  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of.  It  dis- 
courages riotousness  and  seditiousness.  But  it  recognizes 
distinctly  the  right  of  the  people  in  the  affairs  of  govern- 
ment (See  Ex.  xix,  7-0;  Num.  xxxvi,  1-9;  Sam.  xi,  14, 15). 
The  Bible  has  not  done  more  toward  degrading  woman 
tban  any  other  influence  in  the  world.  What  are  the 
facts  ?  Is  the  Bible  surrounded  by  more  feminine  abase- 
ment than  any  other  *'  influence  *'?  Are  the  Chinese,  Hin- 
doo, Mohammedan,  Hottentot,  or  the  Indian  women  in  a 
better  condition  than  tliose  where  the  Word  of  God  is 


t  - 1 


\\ 


h 

.•fj 


'*■ 


THB  HUMFSBBT-BBinffBTT  DIlCITfltlOV. 


known  and  respected  T  Was  woman  dishonored  among  a 
people  where  a  Miriam  conducted  the  chorus  of  praise,  and 
where  a  Deborah  judged  the  nation  and  led  its  armies  to  yic- 
tory  ?  Is  the  doctrine— whether  it  be  true  or  not  is  imma- 
terial to  this  point — that  she  was  made  the  vehicle  of  the  In- 
carnation degrading  to  woman  f  Where  is  the  book  that 
reflects  such  honor  on  female  purity  and  beauty  as  the 
Bible  ?  Are  not  the  female  seminaries  and  colleges  of  our 
land  almost  all  under  the  auspices  of  religious  denomina- 
tions ?  Of  course,  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife. 
This  is  no  less  a  dictum  of  nature  and  reason  than 
of  the  Scriptures.  Does  Infidelity  mean  that  a  hen-pecked 
husband  is  the  finishing-stroke  of  a  perfected  civilization  f 
The  late  M.  Thiers  was  not  '*  influenced  "  by  the  Bible.  He 
**  was  always  a  skeptic."  When  a  young  man  he  seduced 
a  stock-broker's  wife,  lived  on  terms  of  criminal  intimacy 
with  her  until  her  death,  and  subsequently  made  his  own 
bastard  daughter  bis  wife.— JV^.  F.  Herald^  Sept.  4, 1877. 
Would  such  be  your  ideal  method  of  exalting  the  fair  sex  7 
Is  the  "  Free-Love"  doctrine  that  woman  is  to  be  "kept" 
only  until  Lust  is  tired  of  her,  more  ennobling  than  the  in- 
spired maxim,  "  So  ought  men  to  love  their  wives  as  their 
own  bodies.  He  that  loveth  his  wife  loveth  himself.  For 
no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh :  but  nourisheth  and 
cherisheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the  Church"  (£ph.  v,  28, 29)? 
Neither  did  the  Bible  approve  of  polygamy.  God  created 
but  one  wife  for  one  man.  The  bigamy  of  Lamech  is  men- 
tioned as  a  monstrosity.  The  Deluge  swept  these  primeval 
Hormons  from  the  earth.  Noah  and  his  family  were 
monogamists.  The  Mosaic  law  did  not  commend,  far  less 
command  polygamy.  That  law  bore  a  relation  to  it  simi- 
lar to  that  of  the  Constitution  of  the  UDited  States  to 
Hormonism.  Plural  marriages  were  regulated  where  tbey 
could  not  be  prevented.  Their  numerous  wives  were  a 
reproach  and  a  snare  to  those  who  had  them.  The  Apos- 
tles were  mionogamistB.    Jesus  says  that  only  tftQ  are  madt 


THE  HUMFHBBT  BBNNBTT  DnOUmOir. 


177 


•ne  flesh  by  marriage  (Mat.  xix,  6).  According  to  the  New 
Testament,  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  voife,  not  of 
wives  (Eph.  v,  23).  Monogamy,  then,  is  the  Christian 
Law. 

The  "various  readings"  of  original  copies,  and  the 
defects  of  translations  do  not  modify  the  meaning  of  the 
Bible  in  any  perceptible  degree.  Are  Shakspeare*s  plays 
less  magnificent  because  editions  differ  in  some  of  theii 
words  and  phrases?  Is  the  Crystal  Palace  ruined  by  a 
flaw,  or  a  particle  of  sand  here  and  there  in  its  mate- 
rials ?  Do  a  few  typographical  errors  materially  affect  any 
book?  Certainly  not.  So  the  slight  inaccuracies  of  manu- 
scripts and  versions  do  not  substantially  change  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Bible. 

As  has  been  said  already,  the  Bible  was  not  intended  to 
be  a  text-book  of  natural  philosophy.    Its  allusions  to  sci- 
ence are  incidental,  but  always  respectful.    It  was  designed 
from  the  Tery  first  to  be  a  teacher  of  moral  and  spiritual 
truth.    We  are  to  expect  only  that  from  it.     It  has  nothing 
to  do  with  such  disputed  matters  as  the  Glacial  Period. 
When  will  men  begin  to  realize  that  it  is  not  a  treatise  on 
astronomy,  geology,  mathematics,  navigation,  fashion,  den- 
tistry,  or  cookery  ?    When  will  they  learn  that  it  was  only 
given  to  answer  those  questions.  Whence  am  I  ?    What  am 
I  ?    Whither  am  I  going  ?    How  may  I  be  prepared  to  go  ? 
You  say  there  could  be  no  vegetation  before  light.    Very 
well ;  Genesis  says  Light  was  about  the  first  thing  that  was 
called  forth  (Gen.  i,  3).    We  cannot  know  all  about  the 
order  of  the  creation.    Possibly  the  Light  was  at  first  dif- 
fused and  illocal,  and  that  the  mention  of  the  sun  on  the 
fourth  day  signified  only  the  collection  of  the  Light  Into 
that  central  orb.    In  that  case,  the  sun  was  not  made  ex- 
clusively the  light-bearer  until  late  in  the  evolution  of  the 
Universe  (See  Lange  on  Genesis,  ch.  i). 

The  wonderful  events  recorded  in  the  Bible  do  not  nec- 
essarily make  it  suspicious.    A  book  on  geology  will  teli 


^t  J 


nB  KUXFaBBT-BBimiTT  DI8CUMIOV. 


m 


i 


111  of  things  quite  as  startliog  and  unusual.  DinotheriA» 
megatheria,  mastodons,  hairy  elephants,  bats  bigger  than 
eagles,  and  forests  of  inconceivable  luxuriance  and  density 
were  miracles  compared  with  the  present  products  of  the 
earth.  If  marvels  that  have  ceased  to  be  make  the  Bible 
incredible,  they  do  fully  as  much  in  the  same  direction  for 
geology. 

I  had  two  objects  in  view  when  I  arranged  those  self- 
contradictions  of  Thomas  Paine:  Ist.  To  show  that  you 
can  half -worship  some  writings,  thongh  they  contain  dis- 
crepancies, which  shows  that  the  alleged  * 'self-contradictions 
of  the  Bible  "  are  not  the  real  reasons  of  your  enmity  against 
It.  All  would  be  well  had  you  such  charity  for  the  fail- 
ings of  the  patriarchs  as  you  have  shown  to  corrupt  but  im- 
penitent Infidels.  All  would  be  peaceable,  if  you  came  to  the 
Bible  with  a  tenth  of  the  indulgence  that  you  give  to  the 
blundering,  outgrown  writings  of  scoffers  and  doubters. 
Your  prejadices  are  as  Inveterate  against  Christianity  as  they 
are  blind  in  favor  of  Infidelity.  2nd.  I  wanted  to  show  that 
tbc  ideas  of  any  man  could  be  made  to  appear  self -contra- 
dictory, with  a  little  garbling,  disjointing,  collocation,  and 
then  leaving  them  '*  without  comment"  Ton  say  I  quoted 
Paine  unfairly.  I  know  I  did  in  some  instances  ;  but  I  did 
it  in  ierupulaut  imitation  of  your  treatment  of  the  Bible. 

The  Bible  does  nat  exactly  "teach  that  belief  is  a  merit 
worthy  of  eternal  life  and  disbelief  a  crime  deserving  of 
eternal  punishment.'*  It  is  not  the  mere  abstract  belief  or 
disbelief,  that  saves  or  condemns,  but  the  inevitable  out- 
come of  those  states  of  the  soul.  These  words  are  used  in 
the  Scriptures  in  a  sense  that  comprehends  man's  entire 
character,  inwardly  and  outwardly.  Besides,  the  Bible 
does  not  say  that  there  is  saving  merit  even  in  Faith.  Faith 
is  only  a  wndUian  of  salvation.  The  Merit,  on  the  ground 
of  which  the  Divine  Acceptance  is  accorded  to  the  sinneTi 
Is  vested  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Tou  fall  to  perceive  that  the  Bible  contaist  aay  doo- 


trinet  peculiar  to  itself.  I  have  specified  several  of  them, 
which,  it  seems,  you  did  not  notice.  Let  me  then  recapit- 
ulate, and  give  you  some  of  theuL  They  will  show  the 
originality  of  the  Bible,  and  its  superiority  over  all  other 
venerated  books. 

1.  It  teaches  Monotheism.  The  Zend  Avesta  "  contains 
prayers  to  a  multitude  of  deities"  (Clarke's  Ten  Great  Relig- 
ions p.  187).  "  The  religion  of  the  Veda  is  Polytheism  " 
(Mailer's  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop  vol.  i,  p.  27). 
Even  Renan  admits  **that  tfie  Jewish  race  was  the  first  ofaU 
the  nations  of  the  ijoorld  to  arrite  at  the  knowledge  of  one  God  " 
(Ibid  p.  844).  The  Monotheism  of  the  Koran  was  borrowed 
from  the  Bible. 

"  Hear,  O  Israel:  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lobd*'  (DeuU 
vi,  14).  Such  was  the  Jew's  confession  of  faith.  El  Shad- 
dai,  Adonai,  Jah,  and  Jehovah,  were  only  different  names 
for  the  same  Being.  It  is  true  that  the  word  Elohlm  is  in 
the  plural  number;  but  it  is  what  Hebrew  grammarians  call 
the  plural  of  majesty.  It  is  always  used  with  singular 
verbs. 

I  repeat,  then,  that  Monotheism  distinguished  the  Jewi 
from  all  ancient  nations,  and  the  Bible  from  all  "sacred 
books.*' 

3.  That  Chd  is  eternal  and  infinite  was  a  conception  pecul- 
iar to  the  Jews.  The  Gentiles  did  not  regard  even  the 
greatest  of  their  gods  aathe  **  everlasting  Father,"  and  as 
"  the  high  and  lofty  One  that  inhabiteth  eternity"  (Is.  ix,  6; 

ivii.  isy. 

8.  BpirituaMty  in  worship  is  a  requirement  of  the  Bible 
alone.  The  rites  of  Bacchus,  Venus,  and  all  other  heathen 
gods  and  goddesses  were  at  best  but  sensual  orgies. 

4.  The  doctrine  of  Jastificaiion  by  Faith  is  not  taught  la 
any  book  but  the  Bible. 

«.  The  Idea  of  a  divine  Comforter  is  unknown  outside  of 
the  New  Testament.  *'  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
five  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 


Hi 


I 


111 


lao 


THB  SUMFHRXT-BIHMBTT  DUCUMIOIV. 


iH^' 


forerer,  eTon  the  spirit  of  truth  **  (John  ziy,  18, 17,  28)^ 
The  Gentiles  had  their  succoring  and  ayenging  gods ;  but 
they  conceited  of  none  whose  specific  office  it  was  to  con- 
sole and  soothe  the  sorrowful  children  of  men.  It  has 
never  been  said  of  but  One:  **  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears 
from  their  eyes  **  (Rev.  xxi,  4). 

I  am  not  now  contending  for  the  truth  of  these  doctrines. 
I  only  claim  that  they  are  peculiar  to  the  Bible.  I  might  add 
many  to  their  number  ;  but  this  will  be  sufficient  for  our 
purpose. 

We  have  touched  on  the  slavery  question  under  the  first 
proposition.  Instead  of  repeating,  I  will  refer  you  to  Let- 
ter V. 

The  Bible  does  not  encourage  idleness.  On  the  contrary, 
it  says:  "He  becometh  poor  that  dealeth  with  a  slack 
hand  ;  but  the  hand  of  the  diligent  maketh  rich ''  (Prov.  x, 
4).  "If  any  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat"  (3 
Thea.  iii,  10).  **  If  any  provide  not  for  his  own,  and  espe- 
cially for  those  of  his  own  house,  he  hath  denied  the  faith, 
aod  is  worse  than  an  infidel "  (1  Tim.  v,  8). 

You  say  *'the  Bible  has  retarded  the  progress  of  sci- 
ence." That  is  farther  from  the  truth  than  the  East  Is 
from  the  West.  The  grandest  works  of  art,  such  as 
BaphaeFs,  Da  Yinci^s,  and  Angelo's,  are  traceable  to  its 
influence.  Haydn,  Mozart,  Mendelssthn  and  Handel 
founded  their  master-pieces  on  its  sublime  conceptions.  It 
was  the  suggester  of  Milton's  Paradise  Lost.  The  plays 
of  Shakspeare  are  spangled  with  its  words  and  expres- 
sions. The  English  version  of  it  has  done  more  than  any 
other  agency  to  establish  the  uniformity  and  preserve  the 
purity  of  the  English  language.  Christendom  knows  of 
no  University  where  it  was  not  read  at  its  dedication.  We 
have  seen  under  the  second  proposition  that  believers  in  it 
have  doue  incomparably  more  than  unbelievers  to  promote 
learning  and  science.  There  is  even  at  the  Vatican — that 
Capitol  of  Roman  Catholicism— such  an  immense  collec- 


THB  miMFHBBT-BBNKBTT  DISOUBSXOH. 


481 


tlon  of  art,  science,  and  literature  as  would  elicit  an  ever* 
lasting  boast  from  Infidels  if— yes,  z/- they  had  anything 
like  it  anywhere  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  While  the 
•'Liberals'*  of  New  York  are  scolding  everything,  "de- 
fending Communism,"  •*  apologizing  for  murder  and  invit- 
ing to  adultery,"  that  good  old  Presbyterian  elder,  Mr.  Jas. 
Lenox,  is  puttiDg  some  of  his  finishing  touches  on  one  of 
the  finest  Public  Libraries  in  America.  And  so  it  has 
always  been.  The  Christian,  deriving  his  motive  from  the 
Bible,  has  done  the  work,  while  the  peevish  Infidel,  inhal- 
ing his  inspiration  from  "  immortal  hate,"  has  stood  by, 
with  a  maguifying  and  multiplying  glass  in  his  hand,  to 
find  faults. 

You  say  that  any  man  of  average  intelligence  could  write 
another  such  a  book  as  the  Bible.  How  then  has  it  hap- 
pened that  no  one  has  done  it  f  Why  does  somebody  not 
try  it  ?  There  is  plenty  of  ink  and  paper  in  the  world. 
Let  us  see  some  one  attempting  it.  Ah  I  I  am  mocking  the 
inability  of  man.  He  cannot  state  a  moral  principle,  or 
lay  down  a  moral  precept,  that  was  not  anticipated  by  that 
Book.  There  is  no  room  for  another  Bible,  because  the  one 
that  we  have  covers  all  the  earthly  duties  of  man. 

Your  wholesale  condemnation  of  the  Bible  is  an  insult  to 
the  intelligence  of  all  Christendom.  If  it  is  the  absurd, 
indecent,  inconsistent,  barbarous,  injurious  conglomerate 
that  you  represent  it  to  be,  the  millions  who  read  it  must  be 
either  knaves  or  fools.  They  are  fools,  if  all  its  alleged 
imperfections  really  exist,  and  they  fail  to  see  them.  They 
are  knaves,  if  they  see  them,  and  then  decline  to  speak  of 
them.  You  imply  that  only  the  few  who  are  Infidels  are 
acute  and  honest  in  regard  to  this  matter.  It  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  decide  which  is  the  greater  in  this  case,  the  esteem 
of  these  few  for  their  own  intelligence  and  frankness,  or 
their  insulting  disesteem  of  the  intelligence  and  frankness 
of  everybody  else. 

Well,  I  must  pass  many  of  your  misstatements  by,  and 


.  k ' 


iplj' 


li 


I' 


draw  the  dUcussion  to  «  close.  I  will  say  bat  little  in  gem- 
eral  review,  and  will  give  no  recapitulation.  The  reader  wiH 
•do  his  own  retrospecting  and  summing  up.  I  wish,  however, 
to  mention  McQuire's  *' Religious  Opinions  and  Character 
of  Washington,"  New  York,  1836.  It  is  a  solid  work,  dem- 
onstrating the  correctness  of  my  position.  Paulding's 
"Life  of  Washington^'  is  also  worth  reading.  I  have 
recently  seen  a  volume  with  the  title  *'  The  Domestic  Life 
of  Thomas  Jefferson,*'  by  his  great-grand-daughter,  Sarah 
K.  Bandolph.  It  pronounces  Randall  the  "most  faith- 
ful '*  of  Jefferson's  biographers.  This  Implies  the  great- 
grand- daughter's  endorsement  of  what  lir.  Randall  says 
about  Jefferson's  religious  views.  Let  me  also  refer 
you  to  Carpenter's  ^* Inner  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln** 
<pp.  18{Ih-196),  for  more  light  on  Lincoln's  religious  char- 
acter. 

This  discussion  has  been  pleasant  to  me.  Tou  have  made 
ao  personal  remarks  calculated  to  wound  my  feelings.  Ton 
liave  met  me  with  uniform  politeness.  I  can  say  the  same 
of  all  the  attaches  of  the  office.  Mr.  Eugene  Macdona'.d, 
4he  foreman  of  the  printers,  has  always  been  kind,  good- 
natured  and  obliging.  I  will  remember  you  all  not  only 
with  interest  but  esteem.  The  heat  of  the  controversy  may 
liave  made  us  at  times  a  little  tart,  but  our  f riendbhip,  I 
trust,  has  not  failed  to  grow. 

I  am  not  unconscious  of  my  deficienciei.  I  have  omitted 
many  strong  points.  I  have  given  but  hints,  which  I  hope 
the  reader  will  follow  up.  The  '*  Evidences  of  Christi- 
anity *'  fill  volumes.  I  have  scarcely  given  the  alphabet  of 
them.  Tour  Replies  have  been  about  twice  as  long  as  my 
Letters..  But  your  task  was  twice  as  difficult  A  mass 
of  words,  boiled  up,  and  containing  endless  repetitions* 
was  probably  better  calculated  than  anything  else,  to  give 
jour  cause  some  slight  appearance  of  strength.  It  ia 
when  the  advocate  has  a  bad  or  doubtful  client  that  he 
speaka  longest  to  the  Jury.    For  my  part,  I  have  endeavored 


Tm  HUMPBiisiHiiNirm  MMimntH. 


to  avoid  the  cuttle-fish's  style  of  conducting  a  combat.    It 
has  been  my  aim  to  be  clear,  and  to  the  point. 

I  wish  to  protest  against  the  common  insinuation  that 
preachers  are  hampered.  There  are  doubtless  many  instan- 
ces where  the  pew  exerts  too  much  influence  over  the  pul- 
pit But  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  a  class  of  men  more 
free  to  give  expression  to  their  minds  than  ministers. 
We  all  know  how  largely  the  press  is  given  to  time-serving. 
Politicians  are  always  trying  servilely  to  strike  the  vein  of 
the  popular  humor.  **  Business  is  business ;"  and  policy  has 
usurped  the  place  of  principle  in  trade  and  commerce. 
Should  a  clergyman  become  an  Infidel,  and  begin  to  preach 
Infidelity,  he  would  not  miss  his  hearers  much  sooner  than 
an  Infidel  editor  would  lose  his  subscribers,  should  he  be- 
come a  Christian.  Look  at  the  position  of  an  Infidel  pub- 
lisher and  bookseller  :  it  is  not  natural  for  him  to  encour- 
age a  change  of  opinion,  and,  like  the  ancient  sorcerers, 
(Acts  xix,  190  forfeit  his  stock.  There  are  no  men  in  the 
world  that  are  trying  to  u$6  and  manipulate  their  patrons  so 
as  to  make  money  out  of  them,  more  persistently  than 
*'  Liberal "  publishers  and  lecturers.  "  Freethinkers  "  are 
restrained  thinkers,  as  much  as  anybody. 

Permit  me  again  to  warn  the  reader  that  Infidel  writers 
are  not  always  reliable.  John  Adams  was  correct  when  he 
said  that  Bolingbroke  was  a  '*  superficial,  haughty,  arro- 
gant, supercilious  dogmatist."  The  American  Cyclopedia 
says  truly  that  Voltaire  "  was  not  a  great  thinker,  not  a 
great  poet,  not  a  great  historian  .  .  .  not  authentic." 
Chadwick,  a  "liberal"  Unitarian,  says  Paine  made  *•  ap- 
palling blunders  "  (Lecture  on  Paine,  p.  24).  Bro.  Bennett 
says  on  the  strength  of  hearsay — which  to  the  reader  is 
'•hearsay  upon  hearsay"— that  Bismarck  is  a  **  decided  skep- 
tic," if  not  an  Atheist  (Sages  p.  876),  whereas  Hesekifcl,  in 
his  authentic  "Life  of  Bismarck,"  says  he  is  not  only  a 
theist  but  a  communicant  (p.  453).  Mr.  Mendum,  of  Boston 
publishes  a  volume  of  Hume's  Essays,  without  intimating 


r 


484 


THE  HUMFSRST-BXRHXTT  DUOUMIOV. 


that  they  are  abridged  and  mutilated.  He  also  continues  to 
circulate  Macnaught  on  Inspiration,  after  the  author  baa 
reconsidered  and  repudiated  the  position  maintained  in  that 
book.  My  authority  for  saying  Mr.  Macnaught  has  given 
up  those  views  are  Dr.  H.  E,  Thomas,  Pittsburgh,  Pa., 
and  Dr.  Wm.  M.  Taylor,  of  New  York— both  formerly  of 
Liverpool,  near  Everton,  where  Mr.  Macnaught  resided  for 
many  years. 

The  Infidel,  as  well  as  the  Christian,  should  go  himself, 
as  far  as  possible,  to  the  original  sources  of  knowledge. 
This  is  the  world's  great  need.    But,  unfortunately.  Infidels 
are  very  deficient  in  this  respect.    They  read  a  skeptical 
work  with  implicit,  or  blind  faith,  while  they  do  not  read 
the  other  side  at  all-    Paine*8  "Age  of  Reason  "  is  issued 
again  and  again  ;  but  Watson's  Reply  is  out  of  print    This 
is  a  reproach,  not  to  Christians,  who  do  not  need  it,  but  to 
Infidels,  who  point  so  often  to  the  motto,  *'  Hear  both  sides, 
and  then  decide."    I  have  attended  a  great  many  "Liberal 
Club  "  meetings.  I  know  exactly  what  they  are.    They  pre- 
tend to  be  very  generous.   But  nothing  seems  ever  to  be  left 
unsaid  that  might  hurt  a  Christian's  feelings.    Malignancy 
and  flippancy  are  nearly  always  shown  in  the  discussion  of 
a  religious  subject.    The  speakers  are  given  to  going  out  of 
their  way  to  make  thrusts  at  Christianity.   It  is  generally  ob- 
servable that,  while  a  really  good  argument  may  be  quietly 
appreciated  by  a  few,  it  is  the  coarse  joke,  the  silly  pun,  or 
the  mean  insinuation  that  '*  brings  down  the  house."    It  ia 
very  seldom  that  there  are  present  any  indications  of  sober 
thought,  wide-ranging  reading,  or  accurate  iuvestig»tlon  of 
any  kind.     Herein  lies  the  danger  of  Infidelity:  it  k^eps  its 
victims  ignorant  of  tJte facts  and  truth*  of  Christian  ity.  Where 
Infidels  liave  gone  to  the  trouble  to  examine  thorouf  hly  its 
'many  infallible  proofs"  (Acts  i,  8).  a  revolution  of  opin- 
ion has  generally  followed.    When  Thomas  drew  nefx,  and 
touched  the  risen  Lord,  his  doubts  disappeared.    When 
Atbenagoras  proceeded  to  make  careful  inquiries  Isto  th« 


TH8  BUXPHBST-BSHKKrr  DnOTTSStOir. 


485 


nature  and  support  of  the  Gospel  system,  he  ceased  to 
doubt  it,  and  became  a  defender  of  it.  When  the  young 
Chalmers  gave  Butler's  "Analogy"  a  serious  consideration, 
he  was  compelled  to  conclude  that  the  balance  of  probabili- 
ties was  in  favor  of  the  Christian  Religion.  When  Gilbert 
West  proceeded  to  examine  the  proofs  of  the  Resurrection 
of  Christ,  in  order  that  he  might  the  more  completely  dis- 
believe and  disprove  it,  unexpectedly  to  himself,  he  was 
made  to  see  that  that  Fact  was  more  undeniable  and  cer- 
tain than  anything  in  history.  Lord  Littleton  started  out 
to  show  the  absurdity  of  Christianity,  from  the  conversion 
of  St.  Paul ;  but  after  studying  that  event  in  all  its  rela- 
tions, he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  an  absolute 
demonstration  of  the  truth  of  what  he  had  intended  to 
prove  false.  David  Nelson  has  written  a  book  on  •*  The 
Cause  and  Cure  of  Infidelity."  Every  Infidel  in  the 
world  ought  to  read  it.  Mr.  Nelson  was  himself  a  skeptic 
for  many  years.  He  had  a  wfde  experience  with  that  class 
of  men.  He  found  them,  as  a  rule,  ignorant  of  the  Bible. 
He  observed  that  almost  every  one  of  them  who  gave  the 
evidences  of  Religion  a  dispassionate  and  thorough  exami- 
nation, ended  by  believing  in  it.  Would  to  God  that  every 
skeptic  would  make  the  experiment  I  I  am  confident  that 
if  the  Infidel  would  give  the  works  that  I  have  mentioned 
in  Letters  vin  and  xii  an  unprejudiced,  thorough,  and 
thoughtful  reading,  he  would  give  up  his  Infidelity. 

Many  are  deluded  into  the  belief  that  Christianity  is  los- 
ing ground.  It  is  a  vain  fear  for  the  Christian,  and  a  vain 
hope  for  the  Infidel.  The  last  five  years  have  been  remark- 
able for  accessions  to  the  churches.  The  world  never  had 
BO  many  Bibles,  churches,  ministers,  and  genuine  believers, 
AS  it  has  to-day.  The  Gospel  is  not  losing  its  hold  on  the 
people.  There  are  no  churches  so  well  attended  in  New 
York  and  vicinity,  as  those  in  which  the  simple  Gospel  is 
preached.  The  churches  of  Dr.  Hall,  Dr.  Taylor,  Dr. 
Bevan,  Dr.  Cuyler,  Dr.  Duryea,  Dr.  ArmiUge,  Dr.  Storrs, 


Ttat  BUMFERBT-BSNKBTT  BIB€0B8I<IBI» 


4g$ 


Dr.  Hepworth,  Dr.  Deems,  Dr.  Tjng,  Jr.,  etc,  etc.,  «ro 
full  every  Sunday,  while  the  coogregationB  of  FrotliiDg- 
ham,  Alger,  Adler,  etc.,  mre  neTer  immense,  after  all  the 
coaxing,  beckoning,  and  drumming  up  of  Bensational  ad- 
-vertisements.  The  Bible  Society  is  not  bankrupt  yet.  Last 
year  it  issued  881,056  Testaments  and  Bibles.  The  songs 
of  Sankcy  and  the  preaching  of  Moody  have  charms  for 
Ihe  masses  that  Infidelity  can  never  emulate. 

It  has  always  been  the  wishful  cry  of  its  enemies  that  the 
Christian  Religion  is  "  dying  out.**  They  thought  so  when 
Christ  was  crucified  and  buried  ;  but  he  arose,  leading 
captivity  captive  They  thought  so  when  the  Apostles 
were  dispersed  from  Jerusalem  ;  but  that  only  spread  it  the 
faster.  They  thought  so  when  the  Roman  Emperors  put 
thousands  of  Christians  to  death ;  but  the  blood  of  the 
martyrs  was  the  seed  of  the  Church.  They  thought  so 
when  Julian  apostatized,  and  turned  all  his  influence 
against  it ;  but  Julian  died  exclaiming,  "  0  Galilean,  thou 
hast  conquered  1'*  They  thought  so  when  the  English  Deists 
made  their  big  boasts ;  but  Deism  is  out  of  fashion,  and 
the  Word  of  God  is  as  quick  and  powerful  as  ever.  They 
thought  so  when  the  French  Atheists  set  up  a  Goddess  of 
Reason,  offered  human  taerijlest  to  her,  and  declared  Death 
to  l>e  an  eternal  sleep.  But  those  Atheists  have  passed 
away  ;  and  their  memory  is  the  r0d  light  danger-signal  of 
history,  warning  the  world  away  from  their  footsteps. 
They  thought  so  when  the  German  Rationalists  flooded  the 
Fatherland  with  their  ** destructive  criticisms**;  but  Ra- 
tionalism is  on  the  wane,  and  giving  place  to  Evangelical 
truth.  Some  think  so  now,  when  Materialism  is  vaunting 
it  elf ;  but  Christianity  has  overcome  that  foe  before,  and 
it  will  vanquish  him  again.  The  gates  of  Hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  the  Church  of  Christ  I 

I  am  about  to  lay  my  pen  aside.  Let  us.  Friend  Bennett 
and  dear  readers,  take  a  serious  view  of  life.  We  all  know 
that  the  #orl4  is  iwH  just  as  il  ovi^i  to  be.    There  is  weep* 


llig  and  walling  and  gnashing  of  teeth  all  around  us.  O 
the  Niagara  of  souls  that  is  plunging  over  the  precipice  of 
ruin,  in  our  tight  eoery  day  / 

O  the  havoc  of  sin  I  How  shall  we  banish  it  from  bur  own 
hearts  and  from  the  world  ?  is  the  question  of  questions. 
The  possibilities  of  human  nature  are  at  once  appalling  and 
pleasing  to  contemplate.  How  much  man  is  capable  of 
suflfering  or  enjoying  I  How  a  bad  chracter  keeps  petrify- 
ing and  becoming  more  and  more  unchangeable  r  How  vast 
is  the  vista  of  immortality,  opening  out  before  us  I  Eter- 
nity should  be  the  motive  power  in  our  lives.  The  fashion 
of  this  world  passelh  away.  The  earth  itself  will  run  its 
course  and  die.  The  old  clock  of  Time,  whose  ticlta  are 
centuries,  will  stop  at  last.  Time  shall  be  no  more.  Human 
schemes  and  theories  will  sink  successively  into  oblivion, 
like  a  baby*8  dreams.  But  the  Word  of  our  God  shall  stand 
forever.  Let  us  take  unto  ourselves  the  whole  armor  of  God^ 
that  we  may  be  able  to  withstand  in  the  evil  day,  and  hav- 
ing done  all  to  stand  (Eph.  vi,  10-18).  Let  us  run  no  riskf 
about  everlasting  things.  Good  bye,  and  God  bless  you, 
lor  Christ's  sake.    Yours  in  the  bonds  of  friendship, 

G.  H.  HUXPHBKT. 


MB.   BBMVBTT* 

Ret.  G.  H.  Huhfhbbt,  Dear  Sir:  Once  more,  and  for 
ihe  last  time,  at  present,  it  devolves  upon  me  to  correct  some 
of  the  errors  you  seem  so  disposed  to  fall  into,  and  to  set 
you  aright  where  you  so  easily  get  wrong.  I  have  hoped 
you  would  come  to  see  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Nature,  and 
cease  to  be  led  aside  by  the  myths  and  fallacies  that  have 
led  so  many  millions  astray.  I  still  indulge  the  hope  that 
your  native  good  sense,  with  the  information  you  have 
acquired  by  study,  will  ultimately  lead  you  to  discard  the 


i 


'I 

f 


THK  HimPHRBT-BBNNSTT  DI8CTT88I0ir. 


errors  of  ecclesiasticism  and  superstition  wbich  still  hoyei 
over  you.  This  hope  I  will  continue  to  indulge.  Many 
men  with  faith  in  the  supernatural  as  strong  as  your  own, 
who  for  a  large  portion  of  their  lives  saw  dimly  and  as 
through  a  heavy  fog.  have  lived  to  sec  the  mists  cleared 
away,  the  clouds  dispelled  by  the  breezes  of  Nature,  and  the 
sun  of  truth  and  reason  shine  forth  with  permanent  bright- 
ness and  splendor. 

It  is  very  easy  for  you  to  say  that  my  "disquisition  on 
Atheism  is  a  mixed  mixture  of  theoretical  errors  aod  hiE- 
torical  blunders.'*  Instead  of  tryinji:  to  set  aside  my 
remarks  thus  with  a  single  effort,  would  it  not  have  been 
better  in  you  to  have  shown  up  the  errors  and  pointed  out  the 
blunders  ?  Probably  you  took  the  course  easiest  for  you. 
How  easy,  indeed,  it  is  for  you  to  be  mistaken.  You  say  I 
epitomized  Bttchner.  To  show  how  wildly  you  strike  I  must 
inform  you— though  I  do  it  with  a  degree  of  shame — that 
I  have  uever  read  Bdchner,  but  I  know  enough  of  him  to 
be  satisfied  that  you  wrong  him  by  denouncing  him  as  a 
second-rate  mau.  He  was  a  profound  thinker,  and  Ger- 
many has  produced  few  clearer  and  more  penetrating 
minds. 

Your  last  vindictive  fling  at  Ingersoll  I  will  try  to  par- 
don ;  and  while  it  is  not  an  Indication  of  greatness  of 
mind,  it  is  to  be  hoped  your  gratuitous  aspersions  of  him 
do  you  a  certain  amount  of  good  and  afford  you  a  degree 
of  secret  pleasure. 

I  will  admit  that  Agassiz  retained  considerable  con- 
nection with  orthodox  dogmas ;  that  Prof.  Dawson,  of 
Montreal,  does  the  same  ;  that  Mivart  is  a  theologian,  and 
that  he  would  denounce  you  as  a  heretic  ;  but  mobt  of  the 
others  you  named  are  very  far  from  holding  the  belief  in  a 
personal  God,  a  personal  Devil,  or  a  literal  hell,  with  the 
many  absurdities  growing  out  of  that  belief.  It  is  much 
like  your  trying  to  make  a  Christian  of  Jefferson  to  under- 
take to  show  that  Ddtwin,  Spencer,  Tyndall,  JTohn  Stuart 


THE  HUKPHRBT  BBNNBTT  DIB01788I0K. 

MUl,  Proctor,  Carpenter,  Sir  Wm.  Thomson,  etc.,  enter- 
tain  the  faintest  belief  in  a  personal  God  in  the  shape  of 
a  man  with  violent  passions  and  impulses,  with  the  ability 
to  fly  into  a  rage  upon  the  most  trivial  provocation  and  to 
Bend  dire  judgments  and  fierce  destruction  upon  his  own 
offspring.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  being  in- 
fluenced with  the  grandeur  of  the  Universe  and  the  myste- 
ries connected  with  its  actual  existences  and  accepting  the 
very  imperfect  and  childish  views  of  deity  as  the  source 
of  all  things  as  portrayed  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

I  am  aware  there  are  many  shades  of  belief,  and  that 
men  of  learning  and  science  do  not  yet  all  arrive  at  the 
fiame  conclusion  respecting  the  Infinite,  the  eternal 
source  of  life  and  being.  As  for  myself,  I  comprehend  that 
it  is  contained  within  the  Universe,  and  it  is  clear  to  my 
mind  that  the  leading  scientists  and  thinkers  of  our  day 
know  nothing  of,  and  believe  nothing  of,  a  force,  a  power, 
outside  of  the  Universe  or  disconnected  from  it.  Early 
teachings  and  early  impressions  are  very  difficult  to  throw 
off,  and  the  theological  bias  we  receive  in  our  childhood 
remains  with  us,  to  a  certain  degree,  through  life. 

I  am  aware,  too,  of  the  fact  that  certain  minds,  however 
intelligent  and  learned,  have  a  strong  tendency  to  hedffe, 
to  cater  to  and  sustain,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  popular 
religious  theories;  and  they  feel  a  strong  dislike  to  oppose 
the  theological  notions  which  still  prevail  in  this  country 
and  in  Europe.    It  is  even  painful  to  witness  the  incentive 
there  is  offered  to  some  scholars  to  bow  to  the  supremacy 
of  antique  faiths  and  mysticisms  which  for  many  centuries 
have  dominated  the  world.     It  will  require,  however,  a 
greater  amount  of  ingenuity  than  even  you  possess  to  make 
it  appear  to  intelligent^minds  that  Darwin,  Spencer,  Hux- 
ley, Tyndall,  Proctor,  Helmholtz,  Haeckel,  Schmidt,  and 
others  of  the  brilliant  and  studious  scientists  of  our  time, 
have  the  least  affiliation  with  the  very  imperfect  theories 
founded  upon  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Bible. 


4i-' 


UPP*" 


THB  mnavBMt^BWxsEm  Diae^WBom^ 


THB  HUMFHBET-BENNBTT  DISCUBUOlf. 


491 


You  would  have  it  appear  that  Tyndall  is  not  an  Alheistv 
©r  that  he  believes  in  some  kind  of  a  God.    I  certainly  do 
not  wish  to  formulate  a  belief  for  him,  but  will  rather  give 
his  own  words  bearing  upon  the  subject.    In  reply  to  his. 
critics  he  fearlessly  said:  **  1  do  not  fear  the  charge  of  Athe- 
ism.   Nor  should  I  ever  disavow  it  in  reference  to  any 
definition  of  the  Supreme  which  he  or  his  order  would  be 
likely  to  frame."    While  he  may  not  be  an  Atheist  in  the 
definition  you  give  the  term,  he  certainly  recognizes  no 
personal  being  or  God  who  devised,  builded,  and  governs 
the  Universe.    Upon  this  point  he  says:  "As  far  as  the 
eye  of  science  has  hitherto  ranged  through  Nature,  no  in- 
trusion of  purely  creative  power  into  any  series  of  phe- 
nomena has  ever  bt^n  observed.    The  assumption  of  such 
a  power  to  account  for  special  phenomena  has  always 
proved  a  failure.     It  is  opposed  to  the  very  spirit  of 
science,  and  I  therefore  assumed  the  responsibility  of  hold- 
ing up  in  contrast  with  it  that  method  of  nature  which  it 
has  been  the  vocation  and  triumph  of  science  to  disclose^ 
and  in  the  application  of  which  he  can  alone  hope  for 
further  light.    Holding,  then,  that  the  nebular  and  aU 
subsequent  lif«  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  the 
germ  to  the  finished  organism,.  I  re-affirm  here,  not  arro- 
gantly or  defiantly,  but  wUhout  a  shad©  of  indistinctness^ 
the  position  laid  down  in  Belfast.** 

The  gist  of  that  address,  after  reviewing  the  various 
theories  and  philosophies  that  had  existed  in  the  world, 
and  after  quoting  and  virtually  accepting  the  position  of 
Lucretius,  that "  Nature  is  seen  to  do  all  things  sponta- 
neously of  herself  without  the  assistance  of  the  gods,"  and 
Bruno,  that  "Matter  is  not  that  mere  empty  capacity 
which  philosophers  have  pictured  her  to  be,  but  the  Uni- 
versal Mother  who  brings  forth  all  things  as  the  fruit  of 
her  own  womb,"  Tyndall  boldly  asserts  that  "the  ques- 
tions here  raised  are  inevitable.  They  are  approaching  ut 
with  accelerated  speed,  and  it  is  not  a  matter  of  indi&r 


ence  whether  they  are  introduced  with  reverence  or  irrev- 
erence. Abandoning  all  disguise,  the  confession  I  feel 
bound  to  make  before  you  is  that  I  prolong  the  vision 
backward  across  the  boundary  of  experimental  evidence, 
and  discern  in  that  matter  which  we  in  our  ignorance,  and 
notwithstanding  our  professed  reverence  for  its  Creator, 
have  hitherto  covered  with  opprobrium,  the  promise  and 
potency  of  every  form  of  life."  It  was  this  quotation,  you 
will  doubtless  remember,  which  especially  brought  down 
upon  Tyndairs  head  the  fiery  and  frantic  denunciations  of 
theologians  all  over  Christendom. 

Herbert  Spencer,  as  I  understand,  is  no  more  a  believer 
In  a  personal  God  as  described  in  the  Bible  than  is  Tyndall. 
What  he  calls  the  "Unknowable"  is  nothing  more  than 
the  "  intricate  powers  of  the  Universe,  too  deep,  too  vast 
for  man's  comprehension."  He  does  not  believe  the  Uni- 
verse had  a  designer,  or  that  it  is  so  imperfect  as  to  be  un- 
able to  run  without  a  superintendent.  The  same  of  Dar- 
win. While  he  does  not  dogmatically  or  offensively  wish  to 
oppose  the  theoretical  views  of  the  majority  of  mankind,  his 
entire  philosophy  and  theories,  based  upon  thousands  of 
minute  observations,  show  that  he  has  never  found  a  per- 
sonal God,  and  that  he  sees  no  place  for  or  need  of  one  in 
the  operations  of  the  Universe. 

You  say  my  •'  notion  of  the  Universe  rests  upon  assump- 
tion." Indeed  I  What  does  the  existence  of  your  God  rest 
upon  but  assumption  ?  The  great  difference  between  the 
two  is  that  the  Universe  is  a  reality.  We  constantly  come 
in  contact  with  it  and  are  parts  of  it.  We  can  subject  it 
to  numerous  tests  which  convince  us  that  it  is  real  and 
palpable.  We  can  see  it,  feel  it,  weigh  it,  measure  it,  and 
prove  thousands  of  times  over  that  not  an  atom  of  it  can 
be  forced  out  of  existence.  But  your  God  is  wholly  an 
assumption.  No  one  has  ever  seen  him.  No  man  knows 
aught  about  hhn,  and  all  they  have  who  think  they  know  is 
What  one  has  told  to  another,  and  he  to  another,  and  so  on 


for  thousands  of  years.    There  is  not  the  first  particle  of 
proof  that  he  has  an  existence  sare  in  the  imaginations  of 
men  like  yourself,  whose  position  in  society,  whose  success 
in  life,  whose  standing  in  the  estimation  of  Mrs.  Grundy  & 
Co.,  whose  aWlity  to  procure  fine,  fashionable  garments, 
tnd  whose  very  bread  and  butter  depend  upon  holding  up 
and    sustaining    the  God  or   gods  which  were  devised 
thousands  of  years  ago,  when  man  was  more  ignorant 
than  now.    The  system  of  mythology,  of  which  theology 
is  a  branch,  is  in  the  view  of  its  supporters  and  defenders 
a  great  system.     It  has  proved  a  rich  mine  to  the  millions 
who  have  assiduously  worked  it  for  several  millenniums. 
It  is,  perhaps,  not  strange  that  a  lode  which  has  turned  out 
kuch  rich  nuggets  of  wealth,  comforts,  reputation,  venera- 
tion, with  immunity  from  toil  and  hardship,  should  be 
retained  with  the  utmost  tenacity.     We  could  not  expect 
that  men  who  are  fond  of  a  distinguished  position  in  life, 
who  like  to  secure  all  the  good  things  of  the  world  without 
toiling  to  produce  them,  who  like  to  be  venerated  as  almost 
gods  themselves,  or  at  least  the  immediate  agents  for  the 
gods,  would  voluntarily  tear  down  the  idols  they  have 
built  and  which  support  them  so  munificently,  and  will- 
ingly throw  away  the  myths  and  fallacies  which  have 
served  them  so  good  a  turn.    No ;  they  may  be  expected 
to  cling  to  the  gods  and  the  myths  so  long  as  their  service 
pa^fs.    Not  until  the  people  become  better  informed  and  are 
able  from  increased  intelligence  to  discard  all  the  old  myths 
and  superstitions,  thus  impelling  them  to  discontinue  the 
support  of   the  priests  who    make  it   their  business  to 
talk  about  the  gods  and  dimly  reveal  their  hidden  attri- 
butes, can  they  be  expected  to  discontinue  the  profitable 
calling  ?    There  are,  of  course,  some  honorable  exceptions. 
Considerable  numbers  of  the  clergy  are  coming  to  take  an 
entirely  different  view  of  the  theological  field  from  that 
which  they  have  hitherto  held.    The  revelations  of  science 
are  showing  them  the  crude  fallacies  of  the  old  system,  and 


TBB  HDMFHBXT-BBNineTT  DI0OU8tKnit 


488 


tiiey  have  the  honesty  to  follow  where  truth  leads.    May 
many  more  do  likewise. 

Of  course  there  is  much  in  the  Universe  that  is  wonder- 
ful, much  that  man  is  not  fully  able  to  comprehend.    The 
process  of  reproduction  in  vegetable  and  animal  life  is  a 
marvel;  the  intricacies  of  life  are  full  of  wonder.    The 
mysteries  of  crystalization  are  not  fully  understood.    The 
solution  of  a  given  substance  when  passing  through  the 
process  of  crystal  ization  always  produces  precisely  the 
same  character  of  crystals,  while  the  solution  of  another 
substance  will  form  crystals  of  an  entirely  different  con- 
struction— always  following  unvarying  laws.    An  expert 
can  always  determine  the  name  of  a  substance  by  examin- 
ing its  crystals.    The  formation  of  crystals  in  hundreds  of 
forms  and  angles  is  nearly  as  curious  as  the  various  phases 
of  life.    Chemical   aflSnity  and  the   numerous   chemical 
combinations  are  equally  marvelous.    The  motions  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  the  rotation  and  revolutions  of  suns  and 
worlds,  the  balancing  and  commingling  of  the  forces  of 
the  Universe,  all,  all  are  wonderful  to  comprehend;  but 
everything   moves  in   obedience  to   Nature's  laws,  and 
nothing  by  supernatural  law;  and  those  laws  were  never 
made,  ftnd  there  was  never  a  time  when  they  did  not  exist. 
It  requires  no  supervision  of  a  God  to  cause  the  germina- 
tion of  a  kernel  of  corn  in  the  warm  soil  in  the  spring  of 
the  year,  nor  for  the  trees  to  put  on  their  foliage,  nor  for 
the  earth  to  perform  its  daily  revolutions,  causing  day  and 
niglit,  nor  to  send  it  on  its  annual  course  around  the  sun, 
causing  summer  and  winter.    It  is  the  same  with  the  mill- 
ions of  operations  and  changes  that  are  constantly  taking 
place  in  every  part  of  the  Universe.    Every  effect  has  a 
natural  cause  sufllcient  to  produce  it,  and  It  has  ever  been 
so.    No  result  has  ever  taken  place  that  was  not  the  pro- 
duct of  natural  causes  and  forces.    This  being  so,  the 
supernatural  is  never  needed  and  is  never  present.    The 
Universe  is  sufficient  for  every  emergency,  and  the  services 


k 


vIRB 


TFB  HUMPHBET-BENNKTT  DISCUS8I0N. 


of  a  God  are  not  required,  either  in  the  simplest  operations 
that  take  place  around  us  or  in  the  most  grand  and  gigan- 
tic that  are  constanily  occurring  throughout  the  vast  ex- 
panse of  the  Universe,  the  millions  of  suns  and  worlds, 
countless  billions  of  miles  apart,  and  at  distances  from  us 
too  vast  for  the  mind  to  comprehend.  The  Universe,  I 
repeat,  is  sufficient  for  all  necessities,  in  all  localities,  and 
at  the  greatest  distances;  while  a  personal  or  anthropomor- 
phic or  Bible  God  could  not  possibly  be  present  in  millions 
of  spheres  and  constellations  at  the  same  time  and  at  the 
immense  distances  we  know  they  are  apart. 

It  is  only  natural  for  the  ignorant  mind,  in  taking  a  dim 
view  of  the  Universe— all  that  we  can  see  from  our  planet 
being  a  mere  point  in  the  vast  and  boundless  whole— to 
exclaim,  "All  this  must  have  had  a  designer,  an  architect, 
a  governor  and  controller,"  but,  in  my  opinion,  the 
Universe  is  far  greater  and  grander,  more  omnipresent  and 
omniscient,  than  all  the  gods  that  men  have  ever  devised. 
By  the  side  of  the  vast  Universe,  Brahma,  Ormuzd,  Fohi, 
Osiris,  Zeus,  Jupiter,  Odin,  Thor,  Jehovah,  Allah,  Mumbo- 
Jumbo,  and  the  hundreds  of  other  gods  conceived  by  man, 
pale  into  utter  insigniacance.  One  is  a  vast,  grand  reality, 
and  the  others  have  no  existence  save  in  the  imagination* 
of  superstitious  men. 

I  cannot  help  observing  how  easy  it  is  for  you  and  other 
theologians  to  speak  slightly  of  *' blind  forces,"  "dead 
matter,"  "mindless  matter,"  and  of  their  inability  to  pro- 
duce the  million  of  results  that  every  moment  are  taking 
place,  when  in  the  same  breath  you  claim  that  they  are  the 
handiwork  of  your  God,  produced  by  him  after  spending 
countless  ages  in  cogitating  and  designing  how  to  get  them 
all  up.  If  you  believe  them  to  be  the  handiwork  of  your 
God,  you  should  at  least  speak  respectfully  of  them.  If  you 
will  sot  aside  the  reality  and  revere  a  chimera  in  Its  place, 
if  you  believe  the  chimera  devised  the  reality,  you  should 
ri  least  treat  the  reality  with  proper  respect. 


?rHB  HUHPHRXT-BKNNSrT  DIBCUSStON. 


%9S 


1  am  struck  with  the  facility  with  which  you  and  others 
like  you  disregard  and  set  aside  the  reality,  build  up  an 
imaginary  something  or  nothing  in  its  place.  It  is  easy  for 
me  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  every  form  of  substance 
that  can  be  demonstrated,  whether  it  is  in  the  solid,  liquid, 
fluid  or  gaseous  form,  and  in  all  the  forces  that  are  insepar- 
ably connected  with  them,  whether  shown  as  light,  heat, 
magnetism,  electricity,  attraction,  gravitation,  or  any  other 
and  ail  other  forces  the  existence  of  which  can  be  proven, 
"but  this  unknown,  unreal  nondescript  that  you  call  God, 
which  has  never  been  seen,  analyzed,  tested  nor  demonstra- 
ted— at  the  same  time  possessing  personality,  form  and  lo- 
tjality — is  hard  for  me  to  comprehend  or  believe.  I  have 
never  seen  a  person  who  knows  anything  about  this  marvel- 
lous existence.  All  that  any  one  knows  about  him  is  what 
somebody  has  told  him.  But  hearsay  and  rumor  are  not 
satisfactory  to  me.  When  the  existence  of  this  marvelous 
personality  can  be  proven  to  me,  I  will  readily  believe,  but 
tmtil  that  is  done  I  must  beg  to  be  allowed  to  doubt. 

It  matters  little  who  first  used  the  word  chance  in  philos 
ophy,  but  it  has  thousands  of  times  been  throwji  at  un- 
telievers  in  a  personal  Xjtod  and  a  special  providence,  and 
"has  been  tauntingly  applied  as  though  we  believed  in  a 
Universe  which  runs  hy  chance  and  which  has  no  fixed  law 
or  government.  Nothing  can  be  more  untrue  or  unfair.  As 
^very  event  must  necessarily  have  a  producing  cause  there 
K'an  be  no  chance  in  the  matter. 

As  you  make  Design  the  great  argument,  and  prove  that 
the  existence  of  a  God  mainly  rests  upon  this  one  support,  I 
will  quote  a  few  paragraphs  from  B.  P.  Underwood,  used 
t}y  him  in  his  debate  with  the  Eev.  John  Marples,  at  Kap- 
anee,  0nt. ,  in  1875.  They  embody  my  views  and  are  better 
expressed  than  I  could  express  them. 

"  Let  us  view  this  famous  argument  for  a  moment.  God 
is  something  or  nothing.  To  say  he  is  nothing,  is  to  say 
ihere  is  bo  God.    If  iie  is  something,  he  is  not  merely  a 


TBB  HUMPHBXT-BKl^KTT  DIBCUSeZOfl. 


property  or  quality,  bat  an  existence  per  a»— an  entity,  a 
•ubstancey  whether  material  or  immaterial  is  unimportant. 
If  he  is  a  substance,  alnaterial  or  spiritual  being,  tkeie 
must  be  order,  harmony,  and  adaptation  or  fitness  in  bis 
divine  nature  to  enable  him  to  perceiye,  reflect,  design  and 
execute  his  plans*  II  deity  does  not  reason,  does  not  cogi- 
tate, but  perceiYes  truth  without  the  labor  of  inyestigatioD 
and  contriyance,  he  must  still  possess  an  adaptation  or 
fitness  thus  to  perceiye,  as  well  as  to  execute  his  designs. 

^'  To  say  €k>d  is  without  order,  harmony,  and  adaptation 
or  fitness,  is  to  say  he  is  a  mere  chaos— worse  than  that  im- 
aginary chaos  that  theologians  tell  us  would  result  if  divin* 
agency  were  withdrawn  from  the  Universe.  If  a  being 
withottt  order,  harmony  and  adaptation,  or  a  divine  chaos» 
can  create  an  orderly  Universe,  then  there  is  bo  consistency 
in  saying  that  unintelligent  matter  could  not  have  pro- 
duced the  objects  that  we  behold.  If  order,  harmony  and 
adaptation  do  exist  in  the  divine  mind  (or  in  the  substance 
which  produces  thought,  power  and  purpose  in  the  divine 
mind)  they  must  be  eternal,  for  that  which  constitutes  the 
essential  nature  of  a  god  must  be  the  eternal  basis  of  his 
being.  If  the  order,  harmony  and  adaptation  in  God  are 
coexistent  with  him,  are  eternal,  they  must  be  independent 
of  design ;  for  that  which  never  began  to  exist  could  not 
have  been  produced,  and  does  not  therefore  admit  of 
design.  If  order,  harmony  and  adaptation  are  independent 
of  design  in  the  divine  mind,  it  is  certain  that  order,  har- 
mony and  adaptation  exist  and  are  no  evidence  of  a  pre- 
existent,  designing  intelligence. 

'*  If  order,  harmony  and  adaptation  exist  which  were  not 
produced  by  design — and  which  are,  therefore,  no  evidence 
of  design — it  is  unreasonable  and  illogical  to  infer  designing 
intelligence  from  the  fact  aloae  that  order,  harmony  and 
adaptation  exist  in  Nature.  Therefore,  an  intelligent  deity 
cannot  be  inferred  from  the  order,  harmony  and  adaptation 
IB  Katore.    If  the  order»  harmony  and  adaptation  in  deity 


THE  HUlfPHKKY-BlBNir«TT  DISCUSSION. 


m 


to  produce  his  thoughts  and  to  execute  his  plans  are  eter- 
nal,  why  may  not  the  formation  of  matter  into  worlds,  and 
the  evolutions  of  the  various  forms  of  vegetable  and  animal 
life  on  this  globe  be  the  result  of  the  ceaseless  action  of  self- 
existent  matier  in  accordance  with  an  inherent  eternal  prin- 
ciple of  adaptation?  Is  it  more  reasonable  to  suppose  the 
Universe  was  created,  or  constructed,  by  a  beiDg  in  ^hom 
exists  the  most  wonderful  order  and  harmony,  and  the 
most  admirable  adaptation  to  construct  a  Universe  (which 
order,  harmony  and  adaptation  could  have  had  no  design- 
ing  cause),  than  to  suppose  that  the  Universe  itself,  in  its 
entirety,  is  eternal  and  the  self.producing  cause  of  all  the 
manifestations  we  behold  ? 

"Is  a  God  uncaused— and  who  made  everything  from 
nothing— more  easy  of  belief  than  a  Universe  uncaused  and 
existing  according  to  its  own  inherent  nature?  Is  it  won- 
derful that  matter  should  be  self -existent ;  that  it  should 
possess  the  power  to  form  suns,  planets,  and  construct  that 
beautiful  ladder  of  life  that  reaches  from  the  lowest  forms 
of  the  vegetable  kingdom  up  to  man  ?  How  much  more 
wonderful  that  a  great  being  should  exist,  without  any 
cause,  who  had  no  beginning,  and  who  is  infinitely  more 
admirable  than  the  Universe  itself  I 

"Again,  the  plan  of  a  work  is  as  much  evidence  of  Intel- 
ligence  and  design  as  the  work  which  embodies  the  plan. 
The  plan  of  a  steam-engine  in  the  mind  of  Fitch,  the  plan 
of  the  locomotive  in  the  mind  of  Stephenson,  was  as  much 
evidence  of  design  as  the  piece  of  machinery  after  its  me- 
chanical construction.  If  God  be  an  omniscient  being— a 
being  who  knows  everything;  to  whose  knowledge  no  addi- 
tion can  be  made— his  plans  must  be  eternal,  without 
beginning,  and  therefore  uncaused.  If  God's  plans  are  not 
eternal,  if  from  time  to  time  new  plans  originate  in  his 
mind,  there  must  be  an  addition  to  his  knowledge,  and  if 
his  knowledge  admits  of  addition,  it  must  be  finite.  But  if 
his  plans  had  no  beginning ;  if,  like  himself,  they  arc  tter- 


THB  HUMPHBIT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 

nal,  they  must,  like  him,  be  independent  of  design.  Now, 
the  plan  of  a  thing,  we  have  already  seen,  is  as  much 
evidence  of  design  as  the  object  which  embodies  the  plan. 
Since  the  pluns  of  deity  are  no  proof  of  design  that  pro- 
duced them  (for  they  are  supposed  to  be  eternal),  the  plan 
of  this  Universe,  of  course,  was  no  evidence  of  a  designing 
hilelligence  that  produced  it.  But,  since  the  plan  of  the 
Universe  is  as  much  evidence  of  design  as  the  Universe 
itself,  and  since  the  former  is  no  evidence  of  design,  it  fol- 
lows that  design  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  existence  of 

the  Universe. 

"The  absurdity  of  the  a  posteriori  argument  for  a  God 
consists  in  the  assumption  that  what  we  call  order  and 
adaptation  in  Nature  are  evidence  of  design,  when  it  is  evi- 
dent that  whether  there  be  a  God  or  not,  order  and  adap- 
tation  must  have  existed  from  eternity,  and  are  not  there- 
fore necessarily  proof  of  a  designing  cause.    The  reason- 
ing of  the  theologian  is  like  that  of  the  Hindoo  in  account- 
ing for  the  position  of  the  earth.    "  Whatever  exists  must 
have  some  support."  said  he;  "the  earth  exists,  and  is 
therefore  supported."    He  imagined  it  resting  on  the  back 
of  an  elephant.    The  elephant  needing  some  support,  he 
supposed  it  rested  on  the  back  of  a  huge  tortoise.    He  for- 
got that  according  to  his  own  premise,  that  whatever  exists 
must  have  some  support,  required  that  the  tortoise  should 
rest  on  something.    The  Inconcluslveness  of  his  reasoning 
is  apparent  to  a  child.  Whatever  exists  is  supported.    The 
earth  exists.    Therefore,  the  earth  is  supported ;  it  rests  on 
an  elephant ;  the  elephant  rests  on  a  tortoise  \  the  tortoise 
exists,  but  nothing  is  said  about  its  support. 

**  The  theologian  says  order,  harmony,  and  adaptation  are 
evidence  of  a  designing  intelligence  that  produced  them. 
Tlie  earth  and  its  productions  show  order,  harmony,  and 
adaptation.  Therefore,  the  earth  and  its  productions  have 
been  produced  by  an  intelligent  designer.  Just  as  the 
Hiudoo  stopped  reasoning  when  he  imagined  the  earth  on 


•^HE  HT7MFHRBT-BENNSTT  DISCtJSSlOST. 


4^ 


«n  elephant,  and  the  elephant  on  a  tortoise,  so  the  theolo- 
gian stops  reasoning  when  he  says,  God  made  the  world. 
But  as  surely  as  from  the  premise  that  whatever  exists 
must  have  some  support  follows  the  conclusion  that  the 
tortoise  rests  on  something,  as  it  rests  on  the  elephant, 
does  it  follow  from  the  propsition  that  order,  harmony  and 
adaptation  are  proof  of  an  intelligent  designer,  that  the  or- 
der, harmony,  and  adaptation  in  the  Deity  to  produce  the  ef- 
fects ascribed  to  him  are  evidence  of  an  intelligent  designer 
who  made  him,  as  the  various  parts  of  Nature,  adapted  to  on« 
another,  are  evidence  of  an  intelligent  designer  that  produced 
them.    This  reasoning  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  there  has 
been  an  infinite  succession  of  creative  and  created  Gods, 
which  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  First  Cause,  the  cre- 
ator of  the  Universe.  Then  why  attempt  to  explain  the  mys- 
teries  of  the  Universe  by  imagining  a  God  who  produced 
everything  but  himself,  and  why  argue  from  the  order  and 
fitness  in  the  world  the  existence  of  a  designer.    It  re- 
minds me  of  the  ostrich,  that,  having  buried   its   head 
in  the  sand  so  as  to  render  invisible  its  pursuers,  fancies 
there  is  no  further  need  of  exertion  to  escape  from  the 
dangers  and  dlfllcuUies  which  surround  it. 

"  *  Design  represented  as  a  search  after  final  cause,  until 
we  come  to  a  first  cause,  and  then  stop,*  says  P.  W.  New- 
man, *is  an  argument,  I  confess,  which  in  itself  brings  me 
no  satisfaction. '  *  The  attempt,'  says  Buckle,  'which  Paley 
and  others  have  made  to  solve  this  mystery  by  rising  from 
the  laws  to  the  cause,  are  evidently  futile,  because  to  the 
eye  of  reason  the  solution  is  as  incomprehensible  as  the 
problem,  and  the  arguments  of  the  natural  theologian,  in 
so  far  as  they  are  arguments,  must  depend  on  reason.' 

"  Design  implies  the  use  of  means  for  the  attainment  of 
ends.  Man  designs,  plans,  contrives,  and  uses  secondary 
agencies  to  accomplish  his  purposes,  because  unable  to  at- 
tain his  ends  directly.  But  how  absurd  to  speak  of  con- 
trivance  and   design   in  a  being  of  infinite  power  and 


i 


I 


I," 

I 


600 


TH2  HXTMPHSXT-BBIINKTT  OXtOUBSiaK 


knowledge.  Han,  to  baild  a  steamship,  has  to  fell  trees, 
and  hew  them  into  various  shapes,  get  iron  from  the  earth, 
and  smelt  it  in  furnaces,  and  work  it  into  bolts,  braces, 
nails,  etc.;  hundreds  of  workmen,  carpenters,  joiners, 
blacksmiths,  cabinet-makers,  painters,  caulkers,  riggers, 
etc,  labor  for  months  before  the  vessel  can  be  launched. 
If  man  possessed  the  power  to  speak  into  existence  a 
steamship,  would  he  contrive,  plan,  and  use  means  to  con« 
struct  it  ?  On  the  contrary,  would  it  not  come  instantly 
into  existence  as  a  complete,  perfect  whole  ? 

*'But  the  existence  of  a  steamer,  since  it  is  only  a  means 
to  an  end,  would  be  inconsistent  with  imlimited  power  in 
man.  If  he  were  able  to  effect  his  purposes,  why  should 
he  construct  a  vessel  with  which  to  visit  far-oif  lands  f 
Infinite  power  would  enable  him  to  cross  the  ocean  by  the 
mere  exercise  of  his  will.  It  is  evident  at  a  glance  that  the 
use  of  means  is  incompatible  with  infinite  knowledge  aod 
infinite  power.  This  argument  of  my  friend,  in  proving  too 
much,  proves  nothing,  and  demonstrates  its  own  worth- 
lessness,  and  therefore  we  cast  it  aside.  Design  implies 
finiteness;  man  designs  and  has  to  calculate  and  use  means 
to  accomplish  his  end.  If  he  were  all-powerful,  would  he 
use  that  power  to  construct  ships  to  cross  the  ocean,  or 
armies  to  win  battles,  when  he  could  accomplish  his  ecd 
without,  and  by  those  means  demonstrate  that  he  is  infinite 
in  power  ?  An  infinite  being  would  not  have  to  employ 
means  to  complete  his  works;  he  would  not  have  to  doubt 
and  cogitate  before  he  accomplished  his  design;  that  would 
be  the  method  of  man.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  a  God 
did  all  those  things.  He  supposed  God  infinite  in  every- 
thing, in  his  power,  in  his  love  and  kindness.  He  bas 
power  to  do  everything.  And  yet  the  world  is  so  constructed 
that  at  every  step  we  take,  we  crush  to  death  creatures 
as  minutely  and  curiously  formed  as  ourselves.  They  kill 
one  another  in  numerous  struggles,  nnd  life  has  been  such 
^  series  of  bloody  battles,  resulting  in  destruction  of  life. 


THE  HUICPHBST-BBNNBTT  DISCUflUOK. 


501 


that  the  Waterloos  and  Solferinos  of  history  are  nothing  in 
comparison.  Where  is  the  design  in  the  volcano  that 
belches  forth  its  fiery  billows  and  buries  in  ruins  a  Pom- 
peii and  a  Herculaneum?  Where  is  the  design  in  the 
tornado  that  sends  a  fleet  with  its  precious  freight  of  hu- 
manity beneath  the  remorseless  waves  ?  Where  is  the 
design  in  the  suffering  and  torture  that  thousands  feel  this 
very  moment  in  the  chambers  of  sickness,  and  in  the  hos- 
pitals full  of  diseases  ?  Where  is  the  evidence  of  a  great 
Being  who  has  the  power  to  make  men  happy,  and  yet 
allows  the  world  to  go  on  in  all  its  misery— such  misery  as 
it  makes  one*s  heart  ache  to  see,  and  which  we,  imperfect 
creatures  as  we  are,  would  gladly  stop  if  we  could  ? 

"And  where  is  the  design  in  the  thousands  of  facts  which 
science  has  brought  to  light,  showing  that  there  are  organs 
and  parts  that  serve  no  purpose  at  all,  but  on  the  contrary, 
are  injurious  to  their  possessors  f  Why  do  some  animals, 
like  the  dugong,  have  tusks  that  never  cut  through  tbe 
gums  ?  Why  has  the  guinea-pig  teeth  that  are  shed  before 
it  is  born  ?  Science  tells  us  these  rudimentary  structures 
are  the  remnants  of  a  former  state,  in  which  these  parts 
were  of  service  ;  but  theology  which  requires  us  to  believe 
that  a  God  made  all  these  animals  as  we  now  see  them, 
cannot  possibly  reconcile  these  facts  with  infinite  wisdom 
and  goodness. 

"Adaptation  in  organisms  instead  of  having  been  pru- 
duced  by  a  Deity,  we  hold  is  largely  the  result  of  natural 
selection.  Adaptation  must  exist  as  the  adjust u.ent  of 
objects  to  their  environments.  If  a  flock  of  sheep  be  ex- 
posed to  the  weather  of  a  severe  climate,  those  of  them 
having  the  thinnest  wool  affording  the  least  protection  from 
the  cold,  will  perish.  Those  with  the  thickest  wool  and 
hardiest  nature  will  survive  every  year,  and  by  the  law  of 
heredity,  transmit  their  favorable  variations.  By  this  pro- 
cess those  best  adapted  to  the  climate  live,  and  the  others 
perish.    Thus  in  the  struggle  for  life  we  have  the  "  8U|-- 


'^l 


-I' 


i 
X 


f 


THE  flUMPHBBT'BBNNBTT  DISCUBSrOlT. 


THB  humpbbbt-bennbtt  Disoussidir. 


603 


▼Ival  of  the  fittest,"  without  any  design  whatever.  But 
the  theologian  comes  along  and  looking  at  the  sheep,  sayss 
**  See  how  God  has  adapted  these  sheep  to  the  climate." 
He  forgets  the  thousands  that  have  shivered  and  perished 
in  winter's  cold  as  the  condition  of  this  adaptation.  So 
animals  change  the  color  of  their  coverings  in  accordanc© 
with  their  environments.  The  bears  among  the  icebergs  of 
the  North  are  white,  because  in  the  struggie  for  life  every 
light  variation  has  been  favorable  to  the  animal— has  facili- 
tated its  escape  from  the  hunter  and  its  preying  upon  the 
living  things  on  which  it  subsists.  Those  with  darker  cov- 
erings have  gradually  become  extinct,  leaving  in  undis- 
puted  possesion  of  the  snow  banks  and  icebergs  this  species, 
which  in  color  resemble  the  general  aspect  of  its  surround- 
ings. Look  at  the  rabbits.  Some  change  their  color  every 
year ;  some  are  brown  in  the  summer  and  white  like  the 
snow  in  winter.  Those  with  this  tendency  to  change  their 
color  during  the  year,  having  the  most  favorable  variation, 
have  persisted,  and  this  tendency,  by  heredity,  has  been 
accumulated,  until  it  has  become  a  part  of  the  nature  of  the 
animal.  These  are  but  illustrations  of  a  principle  discov- 
ered by  Darwin  and  Wallace,  and  which  explains  largely 
how,  not  only  color  and  thickness  of  coverings,  but 
speed,  strength  and  suppleness  of  body,  keenness  of  sight 
and  hearing,  and  all  other  parts  and  powers  of  organism 
have  been  developed  in  adaptation  to  their  environment, 
without  any  special  design  whatever. 

"My  friend  says,  we  have  no  evidence  of  the  eternal 
existence  of  the  Universe,  because  we  have  no  personal 
observation  of  it.  But  has  he  any  personal  observation  to 
prove  the  existence  of  an  eternal  God  ?  Yet  he  believes  in 
it.  We  believe  the  Universe  always  has  existed  in  the 
past,  because  we  see  no  trace  of  a  beginning ;  we  believe 
It  always  will  exist  in  the  future,  because  we  see  no  pros- 
pect  or  possibility  of  an  end.  Worlds  have  their  formation 
and  dissolution,  but  the  substance  is  neither  augmented 


nor  diminished.  Matter  is  indestructible  and  eternal.  We 
are  not  therefore  in  need  of  a  creator." 

Thus  I  have  quoted  Mr.  Underwood  at  considerable 
length,  but  he  so  effectually  uses  up  the  great  "design 
argument "  which  you  and  your  brethren  insist  upon  is  the 
one  great  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  God,  that  it  seemed 
best  to  give  it  pretty  full. 

Let  us  recur  again  to  the  Bible.  I  gave  you  in  my  last 
what  seemed  to  me  fifty  good  reasons  why  that  compilation 
should  not  be  regarded  as  divine,  and  you  have  not  refuted 
one  of  them.  They  stand  impregnable  and  must  so  continue 
to  stand.  Tour  greatest  effort  seems  to  be  to  show  that  the 
Bible  has  no  greater  imperfections  than  other  books;  that 
it  contains  no  more  contradictions  than  the  books  written  by 
men.  You  are  constantly  comparing  your,  book  with  the 
writings  of  Gibbon,  Shakspere,  Paine,  Herodotus,  Homer, 
etc.,  with  a  view  of  showing  that  it  contains  no  more  imper- 
fections than  they.  But  that  will  not  do.  I  am  surprised  that 
you  should  use  such  arguments.  If  the  Bible  is  not  supe- 
rior to  all  the  works  that  men  have  written,  we  have  no 
grounds  for  accepting  it  as  divine,  and  it  is  entirely  reason- 
able for  us  to  decide  that  it  was  also  written  by  men.  If  it 
is  truly  the  work  of  the  brain  and  hand  of  Deity,  it  must 
necessarily  be  greatly  superior  to  the  efforts  of  man;  but  if 
this  is  not  the  case  your  claims  for  its  divinity  fall  to  the 
ground.  Its  contradictions  cannot  be  reconciled  by  saying 
that  other  books  contain  similar  discrepancies.  Its  vul- 
garity cannot  be  atoned  for  by  saying  that  other  books  con- 
tain vulgarity.  It  does  not  make  it  adapted  to  the  needs 
of  people  in  this  age  of  the  world  to  show  that  other  books 
were  also  written  long  ago.  All  this  falls  very  far  short  of 
proving  that  it  is  the  work  of  a  perfect  Divine  Being.  If 
it  has  all  the  imperfections  of  other  books,  it  can  be  from 
xio  higher  source.  One  of  two  things  must  be  true— God 
either  wrote  the  book  or  he  did  not.  If  he  is  a  perfect  be- 
ing be  cannot  be  the  author  of  an  imperfect  work  ;  and  if 


( 


■ 


« 


* 


*  f, 


TXB  aUMPHBET-BBKNXTT  OISCUIBIQll. 

hundreds  of  thousands  assert  that  he  is  the  author  of  such 
a  work,  it  does  not  make  it  true.  That  the  Bible  is  teem- 
ing with  imperfections  I  think  I  have  abundantly  shown. 
The  only  rational  conclusion  that  can  be  arrived  at  is  that 
it  is  not  a  perfect  work  and  that  the  writer  was  not  a  per- 
fect being;  that  it  shows  no  superior  ability,  no  greater 
degree  of  perfection  than  is  found  in  hundreds  of  other 
works;  that  if  it  does  not  surpass  ail  that  man  has  written, 
and  that  it  was  also  written  by  men. 

You  make  an  effort  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  not  an  advo- 
cate of  kingcraft,  tyranny,  and  slavery,  but  I  think  you 
are  unsuccessful.    I  am  only  astonished  at  your  assurance 
in  making  denial  of  anything  so  patent.    That  the  Jewish 
kings  were  anointed  and   abundantly  recognized  by  the 
prophets  and,  priests  is  as  noticeable  as  any  feature  of  the 
book.    IngersoU  says:  "  The  Bible  teaches  that  God  is  the 
source  of  all  authority,  and  that  all  kings  have  obtained 
their  power  from  him.    Every  tyrant  has  claimed  to  be  the 
agent  of  the  most  high.  The  Inquisition  was  founded  not  in 
the  name  of  man,  but  in  the  name  of  God.    All  the  govern- 
ments of  Europe  recognize  the  greatness  of  God  and  the 
littleness  of  the  people.    In  all  ages  hypocrites,  called 
priests,  have  put  crowns  upon  the  heads  of  thieves,  called 
kings."    It  was  certainly  so  in  Bible  times;   the  greatest 
tyrants  and  murderers  were  called  to  the  throne  of  God's 
chosen  people  and  their  rule  was  sanctioned  by  the  priests. 
The  Bible  kings  were  certainly  recognized  and  approved 
in  several  instances.    Tyranny  was  the  rule  among  those 
kings.    They  obtained  their  authority  from  God,  and  the 
poor  people  whom  they  reigned  over  were  made  to  feel  the 
iron  hand  of  Jehovah.    Nearly  all  kings  have  been  tyrants 
and  the  Jews  were  no  exception  in  this  regard.    If  Moses, 
David,  and  their  successors  were  not  tyrants  it  is  difficult 
to  find  any  in  hiMory.    That  slavery  is  a  Bible  institution 
I  have  only  to  refer  you  to  Deut.  xxv,  44,  40;  Ex.  xxi.  20, 
21;  Eph.  vi,  6;  CoLiii.  23-24;  Tit  ii^t;  1  Peter,  ii,  18,  and 


TER  MUMFHBST-BXHKETT  DnOUBSIOir. 


flfOS 


numerous  other  passages.    Bible  rule  was  assuredly  one  of 
kings,  tyranny  and  slavery. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  degradation  of  woman.     The 
Bible  is  full  of  it.     The  subjection  of  woman  was  common 
in  all  the  Eastern  nations  in  olden  times,  and  the  Jews 
were  in  no  degree  behind  them  in  this  particular.    The 
preference  for  the  male  sex  is  shown  in  many  parts  of  the 
Bible.    In  the  Mosaic  law,  after  the  birth  of  a  male  child 
the  mother  was  "unclean"  seven  days,  but  if  it  was  a 
female  child  the  term  of  uncleanness  was  extended  to  four- 
teen days.    We  well  know  that  it  makes  a  woman  no  more 
unclean  to  bear  a  female  child  than  a  male,  and  it  was  only 
a  piece  of  barbaric  cruelty  to  make  this  unjust  distinction 
between  the  sexes.    Even  after  the  birth  of  the  reputed  Son 
of  God,  and  no  male  had  officiated,  according  to  divine  law 
the  mother  was  unclean.  Woman  had  no  equality  with  man 
under  the  Bible  regime,  and  the  volume  has  only  to  be  pe- 
rused for  the  fact  to  be  made  strikingly  apparent.    It  is  not 
confined  to  the  Old  Testament  alone.  While  in  the  older  part 
the  statute  stands*  *  *  Thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  and 
he  shall  rule  over  thee,"  the  newer  says,  "The  head  of  wo- 
man is  man,"  "Wives,  submit  yourselves  to  your  husbands," 
"Let  wives  be  subject  to  their  husbands  in  everything,'" 
•*Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the  churches;  for  it  is 
not  permitted  unto  them  to  speak,"  and  much  else  in  the 
same  vein.    The  provisions  in  the  Bible  in  many  respects 
were  especially  severe  and  unjust  toward  females.    On  this 
subject  Prof.  Denton  says:  "If  a  man  went  to  war,  and 
found  among  the  captives  a  beautiful  woman,  he  was'  per- 
mitted to  make  her  his  wife;  and  if  afterwards  he  had  no 
delight  in  her,  he  was  to  let  her  go  where  she  would.    J^o 
help  for  the  woman,  if  she  found  no  delight  in  him."    Ko 
matter  how  much  grounds  of  dissatisfaction  the  woman 
might  have  against  her  husband,  there  was  no  redress  for 
her.    In  the  matter  of  ordinary  divorce  the  inequalities 
were  on  the  woman»s  side.    The  man  was  permitted  to  get 


ii 


■  \^ 


Ill 


A 


i 


VBB  U  UMFUKKT-BENKETT  DISCX7BSI0K. 


,1 

1 

I. 


'i 


«diTO..ee,  but  the  woman  was  not  (Dent,  xxiv,  1),  Of 
coarse  there  are  a  few  instances  in  tlie  Bible  where  woman 
was  mentioned  with  respect,  and  where  she  was  treated 
with  the  distinction  due  her,  but  these  were  only  exceptions 
to  the  general  rule.  In  nearly  all  cases  she  was  made  to 
occupy  a  subservient  position,  and  was  treated  more  like  « 
subordinate,  a  slave,  than  as  one  having  all  the  rights  and 
prerogatives  belonging  to  man.  The  whole  tenor  and  spirit 
of  the  Bible,  touching  the  status  of  woman,  is  that  her  mis- 
sion is  to  minister  to  the  baser  passions  of  man— his  inferior, 
not  his  equal. 

Your  manner  of  befouling  the  memory  of  the  deceased 
French  statesman,  Thiers,  seems  wholly  uncalled  for.  I 
know  nothing  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  but  I  would  not 
base  a  vile  slander  on  the  testimony  of  one  paper  so  notori- 
ously untrustworthy  as  the  New  York  ff&rald,  I  know 
this,  he  was  a  man  greatly  respected  by  his  countrymen, 
and  he  rendered  vast  services  to  his  native  land.  What  he 
did  when  youDg  I  have  at  present  no  means  of  knowing. 
I  cannot,  however,  envy  you  the  disposition  you  evince  ia 
parading  the  faults  of  the  dead  hero. 

You  deny  that  the  Bible  approved  of  polygamy.  You 
might  as  well  claim  that  it  forbids  the  sacrifice  of  bullocks, 
rams  and  be-goats.  The  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Jacob, 
Gideon,  David,  and  Solomon,  were  certainly  polygamists. 
They  are  held  up  as  special  favorites  of  heaven,  and  I  ask 
you  to  point  out  the  passages  where  the  Bible  censures 
them  for  their  polygamy. 

You  cannot  dispute  that  the  Bible  recognizes  humaa. 
sacrifice.  Not  insisting  that  Jephtba  sacrificed  his  daughter 
according  to  his  vgw,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  sons  sldCl 
grandsons  of  Saul  were  sacrificed  to  arrest  a  famine,  and 
iheir  heads  hung  up  in  the  sun.  You  may  know  better  than 
other  people  what  the  meaning  of  Lev.  xxvii,  28,  29  is,  bu4 
it  certainly  reads:  "Notwithstanding  no  devoted  thing  that 
A  man  shall  devote  unto  the  Lord,  of  all  that  ho  hatL,  ^joth 


9WB  HUMPHRET-BENNETT  DMCUBSIOK, '  507 

otman  and  beast  and  of  the  field  of  his  possession,  shall  be 
sold  or  redeemed ;  eVery  devoted  thing  is  most  holy  unto  the 
Lord  None  devoted,  which  shall  be  devoted  of  men,  shall 
be  redeemed,  but  shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  It  strikes 
me  this  language  is  clear  and  direct,  and  need  not  be  mis- 
understood.  If  it  does  not  mean  that  every  man  and  beast 
that  were  devoted  should  be  put  to  death,  it  does  not  m..in 
anything. 

Your  attempted  explanation  about  there  being  light  suf- 
floient  to  perfect  vegetation  and  to  mature  fruits  and  seeds 
before  the  sun  was  brought  into  existence,  is  as  weak  as 

bT^n  t"  fr""'"'-  ^'  ""^^  •"'  satisfactory  to  yourself. 
but  will  hardly  prove  so  to  scientific  persons.  If  there  was 
.0  much  light  why  was  the  sun  created  ?  What  became 
of  that  light  after  the  sun  was  brought  into  existence  f  If 
you  should  claim  that  the  herbs  and  trees  brought  forlh 
seeds  and  fruit  before  the  earth  was  formed,  your  position 
would  be  equally  tenable.    Well  may  you  say  the  Bible 

'"^T"°*,J"'!f '''^°"'  ''^'■''°'"'  »'  N"'""'  PhUosophy 
and  1  will  add,  of  common  tense,  either.  ' 

I  shall  not  contend  with  you  about 'the  honor  you  claim 
for  the  Bible  for  introducing  Monotheism,  thougL  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  how  the  doctrine  advanced  the  Jews  beyond  the 
surrounding  nations.  The  Egyptians  and  other  nations,  as 
I  have  already  shown,  were  far  beyond  them  in  all  the  arts 
and  sciences  and  in  the  march  of  civilization.  If  it  is  . 
virtue  to  believe  in  one  god.  why  should  not  a  belief  in 
several  gods  be  a  greater  virtue  f  and  would  aot  the  size  of 
the  virtue  increase  with  the  number  of  gods  believed  in  t 
Logically,  it  must.  As  I  said  in  a  previous  letter,  there  is 
w  much  proof  of  a  hundred  gods  as  there  is  of  one  I 
called  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  plurality  of  gods 
was  recognized  In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  There 
are  also  other  passages  which  bear  the  construction  of 
superior  and  inferior  gods,  as  most  of  the  pagan  nations 
have  believed.    If  it  is  wrong  to  belU,v.  in  mofe  than  one 


"HI 


508 


TOM  HimPHRBT-BEimETT  DISCUSSION. 


THE  HtJMPHBKY-BKNNKTT  DISCUSSION. 


60d 


Ood,  it  is  ▼erj  questionable  whether  the  Christians  did 
right  in  dividing  him  into  three  parts,  or  persons.  They 
never  got  that  idea  from  the  Jews,  but  borrowed  it  from 
pagan  nations,  many  of  whom  had  trinities.  In  this  regard 
the  Mohammedans  have  preserved  the  monotheistic  idea  of 
the  Bible  far  more  closely  than  the  Christians;  and  if  there 
is  any  virtue  in  Monolheism  they  ought  to  be  the  most  vir- 
tuous. 

I  think  I  was  quite  correct  in  saying  that  the  books  of  tbe 
canon  were  written  at  a  much  later  date  than  is  usually 
daimed.  I  repeat  it,  there  is  no  proof  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Gentile  book  of  Job,  either  book  of  the  Bible  was 
in  eziatence  more  than  seven  hundred  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  and  several  of  them  were  not  written  till  a  later 
date.  The  Jewish  sacred  writings  were  gotten  up  after 
their  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity.  If  there  were 
any  such  writings  before  that  the  Jews  themselves  did  not 
know  of  them.  This  is  attested  by  Hittel  and  other  writers. 
The  Christian  father  Irensus  says  that  **  they  (the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament)  weiefabriecUid  seventy  years  after  the 
Babylonish  captivity  by  Esdras;"  and  Dr.  Adam  Clarke 
guardedly  says:  '*A11  antiquity  is  nearly  unanimous  in  giv- 
ing Ezra  the  honor  of  collecting  the  different  writings  of 
Moses  and  the  prophets  and  reducing  them  into  the  form  in 
which  they  are  now  found  in  the  Holy  Bible.*' 

For  a  somewhat  graphic  account  of  the  nature  of  that 
divine  inspiration  with  which  the  writings  were  composed, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  2  Esdras  xiv,  '^And  the  next  day 
behold  a  voice  called  me,  sayiDg,  Esdras,  open  thy  mouth, 
and  drink  that  I  give  thee  to  drink.  Then  opened  I  my 
mouth,  and  beholdl  he  reached  mc  a  full  cup,  which  wa^ 
loll,  as  it  were,  with  water,  but  the  color  cf  it  was  like  fire. 
And  I  tooK  it  and  drank;  but  when  I  had  drunk  of  it,  my 
heart  utttered  understanding,  and  wisdom  grew  in  my 
breast,  for  my  spirit  strengthened  my  memory.  And  my 
mouth  was  opened,  and  ahm  no  more.    The  highest  gave 


understanding  unto  the  five  men,  and  they  wrote  the  won- 
derful visions  of  the  night  that  were  told,  which  they  knew 
not;  and  they  sat  forty  days,  and  they  wrote  in  the  day, 
and  at  night  they  ate  bread.  As  for  me,  I  spake  in  the  day, 
and  I  held  not  my  tongue  by  night.  In  forty  days  tbey 
wrote  two  hundred  and  four  books.  And  it  came  to  pass, 
when  the  forty  days  were  fulfilled,  that  the  highest  spake, 
saying,  The  first  that  thou  hast  written,  publish  openly, 
that  the  worthy  and  the  unworthy  may  read  it.  But  keep 
the  seventy  last  that  thou  mayest  deliver  them  only  to  such 
as  be  wise  among  the  people." 

After  quoting  the  above,  Preston,  in  his  '•The  Holy 
Bible  a  Historical  Humbug,"  p.  8,  remarks:  "The  above 
sufficiently  shows  the  manner  of  writing  an  inspired  book. 
All  that  is  necessary  to  show  the  matter  which  makes  up  tho 
books  of  the  Bible  is  to  read  them.  We  thus  find  it  histor- 
ically established  that  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  is  now- 
offered  to  us,  was  a  comparatively  modern  production, 
having  been  written  by  a  cunning  old  priest  named  Ezra, 
only  some  five  hundred  years  before  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  that  owing  to  the  carelessness  and  profanity  of  the 
Jews  themselves,  who  not  only  lost  whole  books  of  the 
Bible,  but  burnt  others,  the  Christian  world  to-day  is  in 
possession  of  but  a  small  portion  of  the  **  Word  of  God.** 

The  same  writer  continues  his  observations  respecting 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament: 

•*  It  has  never  been  claimed  that  any  portion  of  it  was 
written  during  the  life  of  the  reputed  founder  of  Chris- 
tianity. Christ  hiinself  never  wrote  a  line  of  the  books 
of  which  it  is  composed.  He  was  put  to  death  without 
having  ever  written  one  word  of  tbe  books  of  the  Bible. 
The  Christian  Church  was  establi^sbed  all  over  the  known 
world  before  a  single  verse  of  tbe  New  Testament,  which 
contains  all  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  had  been  written. 

**  The  first  allusion  that  is  made  to  the  Gospels  was  by 
the  Christian  Father  Irensdus  in  the  year  183,  nearly  a  cen- 


■i' 


X 


5  La 


THB  nXJMPHnET-BENNETT  DISCT7SSI01I. 


%my  and  a  half  after  the  time  of  Christ.  Even  then,  the  four 
Gospels  were  presented  to  the  world  upon  no  other  author- 
ity than  that  of  the  Christian  Father  himself.  At  the  time 
Irenseus  first  introduced  the  four  Gospels,  there  were  many 
others  in  circulation,  some  of  which,  we  are  told,  had  ex- 
isted nearly  a  century  before,  and  had  actually  been  read 
and  quoted  by  the  early  Christians  as  the  word  of  God« 
Among  the  most  important  of  these  may  be  named  the  Gos- 
pels of  St.  Peter,  St.  Thomas,  St.  Matthias,  St.  Bartholo- 
mew, St.  Philip,  Judas  Iscariot,  Thaddeus  and  Barnabai} 
the  Acts  of  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  St.  Andrew,  St.  John,  St. 
Philip,  and  St.  Thomas;  and  the  Revelations  of  St.  Paul, 
St.  Thomas,  St.  Stephen,  and  the  Great  Apostle.  There 
were  upwards  of  fifty  of  these  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Revela- 
tions, which  were,  at  one  time,  considered  the  'divine 
word.'  During  the  first  three  hundred  years  from  the 
era  of  Christ  there  was  no  collection  of  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament.  All  the  above-named  writings  were  circu- 
lated and  accepted  by  the  primitive  Christians  as  of  equal 
authority. 

*'At  length  there  arose  conflicting  opinions  and  Berioot 
contentions  as  to  their  credibility.  It  was  finally  judged 
necessary  to  settle  the  dispute  by  an  authoritative  selection 
of  the  true  from  the  false  books.  The  division  of  opinion 
regarding  them  and  the  nature  of  Cnrist  resulted  in  such 
disorder  that  the  pagans  ridiculed  Christianity  upon  the 
stage.  For  the  purpose  of  preserving  order  in  the  empire, 
Constantine  convoked  an  oecumenical  council  of  the  whole 
habitable  earth  at  the  town  of  Nicaea  in  Bithynia,  There 
assembled  2,048  bishops,  all  of  different  sentiments  and 
opinions.  The  records  of  the  disputes  of  these  fierce  and 
bigoted  bishops  amounted  to  forty  volumes.  The  conflict 
in  the  council  arrived  at  such  a  pitch  that  the  Emperor,  as 
moderator,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  some  degree  of 
unity  and  propriety,  was  obliged  to  expel  1,780  of  tbe  exaa 
poiated  and  contentious  bishops.    The  remaining  318  blsh 


THB  HUMPHBEY-BENNSTT  DI80UB8IOK. 


MS 


ops  then  proceeded  to  determine  which  ones  of  the  yarious 
writings  were  the  inspired  word  of  God  *  This  was  done,* 
lays  one  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  *  by  placing  all  the  books 
under  a  communion  table,  and.  upon  the  prayers  of  the 
council,  the  inspired  books  jumped  upon  the  oommunion 
table,  while  the  false  ones  remained  under.'  But  it  is 
related  that  many  mocked  at  this  method,  and  the  religious 
row  continued  as  fierce  as  ever.  Finally,  most  of  the  man- 
uscripts submitted,  after  being  sufficiently  fought  over, 
were  rejected,  whereupon  Constantino  affixed  the  seal  of 
the  empire  to  the  remaining  few,  declaring  such  to  be  the 
*  word  of  God.* 

"And  as  such  they  passed  until  the  year  863,  when  an- 
other council,  that  of  Laodicea,  was  held,  to  make  a  more 
perfect  selection  of  the  holy  books.  Upon  this  occasion, 
the  manner  of  choosing  them  was  by  vote.  The  books  of 
tbe  New  Testament  were  then  adopted,  nearly  as  we  now 
have  them,  except  Revelations,  which  was  excluded.  We 
are  informed  by  St.  Chrysostom,  who  died  in  407,  that  the 
Acta  of  the  Apostles  was  scarcely  known  in  his  day.  Other 
councils  were  called  to  settle  the  sacred  canon.  There  was 
one  in  406  which  rejected  some  books  received  by  the  coun- 
cil of  363  ;  but  a  later  council  in  680  restored  them.  And 
thus  contentious  priests  continued  tossing  the  '  word  of 
God,*  like  a  battledore,  from  faction  to  faction,  changing  it 
as  the  spirit  of  sect  might  dictate.  As  illustrating  the 
spirit  which  animated  the  ordained  arbiters  of  the.*  sacred 
writings,*  we  give  the  words  of  the  Christian  writer,  Tin- 
dal.  In  his  work  entitled  '  Rights  of  the  Christian  Church,' 
page  195,  he  says :  '  That  he  fled  all  assemblies  of  bishops 
because  he  never  saw  a  good  and  happy  end  of  any  coun- 
cil, but  that  they  did  rather  increase  than  lessen  the  evil ; 
that  the  love  of  contention  and  ambition  always  overcomes 
their  reason/  Speaking  of  the  memorable  Council  of 
Nice,  at  which  the  Emperor  himself  presided,  Tindal  fur- 
ther says  I  *And  if  the&e  accusations  and  libels  which  the 


.  -  ^ 


r 


f 
1 


1 


'■ 


!•'. 


613 


THE  HT7MFHBET-BBNNBTT  DI8CU8BI0K. 


I 


bishops  gave  in  of  one  another  to  the  Emperor  were  notr 
extant,  in  all  probability,  we  should  have  such  roUa  of  scan* 
dal  that  few  would  have  much  reason  to  boast  of  the  first 
(ecumenical  council,  where  with  such  heat,  passion,  and 
fury,  the  bishops  fell  f<nd  on  one  anotlier,  insomuch  as 
h»d  not  the  Emperor  by  a  trick  burnt  their  church  memo- 
lials,  probably  they  would  have  broke  up  in  confusion. 
After  that  council  was  over,  the  bishops  made  so  great  a 
bustle  and  disturbance,  and  were  so  unruly,  that  the  good 
Emperor  was  forced  to  tell  them  that  if  they  would  not  be 
more  quiet  and  peaceable  in  the  future,  he  would  no  longer 
continue  his  expedition  against  the  Infidels,  but  must  return 
to  keep  them  in  order.  Indeed/  continues  Tindal,  '  the 
confusion  and  disorder  were  so  great  amongst  them,  espe* 
cially  in  their  Synods,  that  it  eomelimescameloblotcs;  as,  for 
instance,  Dioscorus.  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  cuffed  and 
kicked  Flavianus,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  (at  the 
second  Synod  of  Ephesus,)  with  that  fury  that  within  three 
days  after  he  died.* 

"And  it  is  upon  the  decisions  of  such  fierce  and  fighting 
fanatics  that  the  Christian  world  depends  for  its  creeds  and 
sacred  scriptures !  The  authenticity  of  divine  revelation 
rests  upon  the  ballots  of  bigots  who  otienfeUfoul  of  one 
^inother^  and  kicked  each  otJier  to  death  /  So  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine  whether  it  was  really  the  majority  vote 
or  the  predomicant  kicking  power  that  finally  settled  the 
vexei  question  which  books  were  God*s  and  which  were 
not.  The  book  of  Luke  was  given  to  God  by  one  single 
vote  majority,  and  that  may  have  depended  more  upon  the 
muscular  activity  of  the  voter  than  upon  his  ability  to  dis- 
criminate between  books  of  God  and  books  of  men. 

'*It  is  a  notorious  fact,  and  one  which  may  well  perplex 
the  priesthood,  that  the  books  which  one  body  of  bishops 
would  piously  pronounce  genuine  inspiration,  another 
council,  equally  as  well  commissioned  to  settle  the  sacred 
canon,  would  condemn  and  reject  as  profane  forgeries. 


n 


THE  HT7MPHRET-BENNSTT  DISOXJflfilON. 


«16 


And  it  is  also  pertinent  to  inquire,  in  this  connection,  whj 
the  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  thirty  bishops  whom 
Oonstantine  thrust  out  of  the  Council  of  Nice  were  not  as 
well  qualified  to  say  what  writings  were  the  word  of  God 
as  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  who  remained?  And 
also,  why,  or  how,  or  by  whose  imperative  command,  is 
the  Christian  world  justified  in  belie viDg  that  the  books 
which  were  saved  and  voted  into  the  the  Scriptural  canon 
are  any  more  sacred  than  those  voted  out,  or  which  were 
lost  or  destroyed  ?  Let  Christians  learn  these  facts,  and 
consider  them  well.  Let  them  realize  the  absurdity  of  be- 
lieving books  to  be  of  divine  origin  which  so  long  lay  in 
obscurity,  and  were  only  saved  from  oblivion  through  the 
presumption  of  unscrupulous  priests,  and  finally  decided 
to  be  genuine  by  the  ballots  of  bigoted  and  bullying 
bishops." 

Let  me  give  you  these  Christian  authorities :  The  learned 
Dr.  Lardner  says  :  *'That  even  »o  late  as  the  middle  of  the 
sixth  century,  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  had  not 
been  settled  by  any  authority  that  was  decisively  and  uni« 
versally  acknowledged ;  but  Christian  people  were  at  lib- 
erty to  judge  for  themselves  concerning  the  genuineness  of 
writings  proposed  to  them  as  apostolical,  and  to  determine 
according  to  evidence  "  (vol.  iii,  pp.  54-61). 

In  the  second  edition  of  his  introduction  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  Rev.  T.  H.  Home  says:  *'The  account  left  us 
by  ecclesiastical  writers  of  antiquity,  published,  are  so 
eagitCy  confuted  and  discordant^  that  they  lead  to  no  certain 
or  solid  determination.  The  eldest  of  the  ancient  fathers 
collected  the  bepokt  of  their  own  times,  and  set  them  down 
us  certain  iruUis,  and  those  who  followed  adopted  their 
accounts  with  implicit  reverence.  Thus  tradition,  trtie  or 
fahe,  passed  on  from  one  writer  to  another  without  examin- 
ation^  until,  at  last,  it  became  too  late  to  examine  them  to 
any  purpose.*' 

Your  supposition  that  the  NcT  Testament  canon  wu 


MMI 

collected  at  tii  etalj  dato,  froM  tbe  faet  tbat  It  does  aoT 
directly  leach  popery,  Hariolatry,  etc.,  i»  of  no  more  force 
ttian  the  Protestant  Sabbath  (first  instituted  by  Constantlner 
In  Ml),  and  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost— which  can 
easily  be  shown  toha^e  been  a  borrowed  pagan  myth— first 
introduced  as  an  orthodox  dogma  at  the  Council  of  Con- 
atantine  in  881  The  fact  that  all  the  cardinal  docttines  of 
ttie  Ghorch  were  not  authoritatlTely  settled  till  a  late  date, 
DTOTes  conelnsirely  that  there  eziited  no  caaon  by  which 
they  could  be  settled.  The  first  councils  in  the  fourth  cen- 
kuiy  were  called  for  the  YCiy  purpose  of  ferreting  out  or 
forging  sufllcient  Scripture  cTidenceto  collect  into  a  canon. 
I  wish,  too,  to  call  particular  attention  to  the  fact  that 
popery  did  not  really  begin  to  have  an  existence  till  60&, 
when  the  title  of  "Universal  Bishop  "—Pope— was  first 
giYcn  to  Boniface  IIL  Ton  will  understand,  too,  that  the 
Papist  can  point  to  as  positiTc  New  Testament  proof  for 
tianaubstantiation  and  Mariolatiy  aa  the  ProUstant  ean  for 
any  of  his  particular  doctrines, 

Tou  say,  **the  wonderful  cTents  recorded  in  the  Bible  da 
not  necessarily  make  it  suspicioHS."  Bo  you  mean  that  in 
such  storiea  aa  the  earth  producing  all  the  yarities  of  yeg- 
elation  before  there  was  either  sun  or  rain;  that  man  waa 
made  of  clay,  and  woman  of  a  rib  Uken  from  him  by  a 
iorgical  operation;  of  a  snake  being  able  to  circumyent 
0od  in  nia  loDgmatured  plan,  until  he  made  it  necessary 
for  him  to  drown  out  the  world  by  raising  the  water  over 
the  entire  earth  to  the  height  of  ftye  miles;  of  two  and 
seyen  of  eyery  yariety  of  animals  being  closely  compacted 
for  thirteen  months  in  a  water-Ught  and  idrtight  yessel;  of 
frogs,  locusts,  lice,  etc,  being  produced  in  immense  quan- 
tities by  miracle;  of  all  the  water  of  a  country  hundreds  of 
■lOes  in  length,  including  a  large  riyer,  being  turned  into 
blood;  of  the  waters  of  seas  and  rivers  parting  and  piling 
up  on  either  side  like  a  wall;  of  a  man's  stopping  the  sun 
aad  moon  in  their  courses;  of  a  man*s  pieyenting  rain  awl 


TBB  mmrwaxMimaaiiri  W909i&iox 


W 


dew  falling  upon  the  ewrth  for  more  than  three  /<3hM,  of  Jo- 
nah's being  swallowed  by  a  fish  and  retained  in  its  stomach 
under  water  for  three  days,  and  then  being  thrown  up  alive 
and  kicking  upon  dry  ground;  of  thiee  men  being  cast  into  a 
fiery  furnace  that  was  made  seven  times  hotter  than  usual, 
without  receiving  the  slightest  iDJary;  of  a  woman  becom- 
ing a  mother  without  the  natural  process;  of  men  being 
raised  from  the  dead;  of  the  graves  being  opened  and  the 
dead  being  resuscitated  and  walking  forth  into  the  city 
among  their  former  companions— do  you  mean  that  all  these 
stories,  and  many  more  equally  as  incredible,  are  not 
enough  to  excite  suspicion  ?  If  so,  I  must  disagree  with 
you.  If  such  extravagant  yarns  were  to  be  narrated  now- 
a-days,  the  strongest  suspicions  would  not  only  be  excited, 
but  everybody  would  declare  them  absurdly  false.  They 
would,  however,  be  just  as  likely  to  take  place  to-day  as 
two  or  five  thousand  years  ago. 

You  say  my  condemnation  of  the  Bible  is  an  insult  to  the 
intelligence  of  all  Christendom.  Nothing  of  the  kind  was 
intended.  I  think  I  have  made  no  misstatement  about  that 
volume,  and  while  I  have  no  desire  to  insult  any  one,  I 
have  wondered  indeed  how  people  of  intelligence  like 
yourself  can  so  easily  swallow  it  without  examination,  and 
accept  it  all  as  truth  without  a  shade  of  error.  It  is  easy 
for  you  to  say  my  reply  *'  bristles  with  distortions,  garblings, 
half-truths  and  untruths,**  but  I  think  it  would  have  been 
very  much  better  to  point  them  out  than  to  make  such 
wholesale  unfounded  charges.  It  is  easy  to  use  epithets 
and  sweeping  assertions,  but  there  is  little  argument  in 

them. 

You  complain  that  Paine*8  Age  of  Reason  is  issued  again 
and  again,  and  that  Watson's  Reply  is  out  of  print.  Whose 
fault  is  that  f  The  Christians*  if  anybody's.  It  advocates 
their  side  of  the  question,  and  they  ought  to  see  that  the 
public  is  duly  supplied  with  it.  It  certainly  is  not  part  of 
the  duty  of  Infidels.    The  very  statement  you  make,  how* 


> 
1' 


^  I 


Dfie 


ever,  shows  the  difference  that  exists  in  the  demand  for  the 
two  works.  The  Age  of  Reason  is  issued  edition  after 
edition  because  there  is  a  demand  for  it ;  Watson's  Reply 
is  out  of  print  and  not  re-issued  because  there  is  little  or 
no  call  for  it.  Books  that  are  d(mMnded  will  always  be 
printed. 

It  is  hard  for  you  to  give  up  Jefferson.  You  fain  would 
still  claim  him  for  a  Christian,  but  I  cannot  help  thinking 
he  knew  more  about  his  views  than  his  great-granddaughter 
knew.  I  recommend  you  to  turn  to  my  third  reply  and 
read  the  quotations  I  gave  from  his  own  writings.  After 
doing  so,  it  will  not  be  an  easy  task  for  you  to  consider  him 
a  genuine  Christian. 

Your  inclination  or  your  prejudice  leads  you  to  give  an- 
other unfriendly  hit  at  the  Liberal  Clubs.  Let  me  again 
assure  you  that  the  members  are  not  all  anti- Christian. 
Some  incline  one  way  and  some  the  other.  Those  who  are 
decided  in  the  convictions  that  Chrietianily  is  re-vamped 
paganism  and  that  its  rule  has  not  tended  to  benefit  the 
world,  claim  the  right  in  moderate  language  to  give  expres- 
sion to  their  convictions.  Those  who  entertain  opposite 
views  are  equally  free  to  giwe  utterance  to  them  and  to  dis- 
prove if  possible  the  errors  of  their  opponents.  The  Lib- 
eral Ciubs  are  certainly  not  the  pernicious  organizations 
you  seem  disposed  to  represent  them.  Perhaps  the  worst 
thing  you  csn  say  about  them  is  that  they  maintain  a  free 
platform  where  a  man  is  privileged  to  say  just  what  he 
thinks  to  be  true, 

Mr.  Nelson  and  yourself  are  equally  mistaken  in  suppos- 
ing that  Infidels  are  ignorant  of  the  Bible.  Although  they 
do  not  believe  in  the  divinity  of  the  volume,  they  are  far 
more  familiar  with  its  contents  than  is  the  average  Chris- 
tian. They  read  it  for  the  purpose  of  learning  its  nature 
and  Import,  while  the  Christian  follows  the  advice  of  his 
pastor,  and  and  accepts  it  and  swallows  it  as  the  word  of 
<lod,  without  hesiiation  or  question.    Th^  do  this  just 


TMB   HUMPHBBT-BBNNETT  DISCUSSION. 


517 


ai  leidlly  without  reading  it  as  with.  If  a  Christian  family 
have  a  fine  copy  of  the  "Holy  Bible"  lying  upon  the 
centre-table  in  the  parlor,  it  soothes  their  conscience;  they 
feel  that  they  are  paying  great  respect  to  God's  word ;  they 
feel  that  they  are  not  only  fully  insured  against  the  ills  and 
mishaps  of  this  life,  but  also  against  the  fiery  torments  of 
the  life  to  come,  whether  they  take  the  time  and  trouble  to 
read  it  or  not.  Many  of  them  prefer  to  pay  their  preacher 
to  read  for  them,  to  pray  for  them,  and  to  think  for  them 
to  troubling  themselves  by  doing  so.  Not  so  with  the  Infi- 
del. He  prefers  to  do  his  own  reading,  his  own  praying, 
and  his  own  thinking. 

It  is  a  poor  commentary  on  the  intelligence  of  a  portion 
of  our  community  for  you  to  say  they  are  more  edified  by 
the  senseless  songs  of  Sankey  and  the  stupid  sermons  of 
Moody  than  by  works  on  Science,  Philosophy  and  Infideliiyj 
It  is  a  pitiful  thing  to  realize  that  men  who  ought  to  be 
intellectual  and  elevated  beings  aspire  to  nothing  higher  or 
more  instructive  than  common-place  platitudes  and  stale 
Sunday-school  songs  about  the  miraculous  properties  of  the 
blood  of  a  man  who  died  nineteen  hundred  years  ago.    It 
is,  however,  a  peculiarity  of  the  Christian  religion  to  feel 
satisfied  with  its  emotional  hallucinations  of  semi-fetish- 
ism, rather  than  to  reach  forward  for  that  which  leads  on  to 
ennobling  and  elevating  positions.    It  is  one  of  the  great 
objections  to  Christianity  that  it  admits  of  no  progress  in  iis 
dogmas  or  even  in  its  philosophy.    It  claims  to  be  a  revela- 
tion from  heaven  which  embraces  all  of  truth  and  all  of 
perfection  possible,  and  there  can  be  no  advance  made 
upon  it.    In  all   departments  of  knowledge,  science,  art, 
instruction,  etc.,   there   have    been   great   improvements 
made--in  agriculture,  plows,  carts,  implements,  machin- 
ery, architecture,  highways,    bridges,   ships,  steamboats, 
railroads,  telegraphs,  etc.    In  all  these,  improvements  have 
been  made  from  time  to  time,  and  much  more  in  the  same 
direction  is  destined  to  come  as  men  advance  in  mental  col- 


ns 


THB  HUlCPBBST'-B 


tare  and  intelligence;  but  with  Christianity  it  U  the  same 
old  thing->a  perfectly  stereotyped  affair— the  same  old 
story  about  the  efficacy  of  blood  and  faith  in  old  dogmas 
and  superstitions  handed  down  from  the  dim  past,  admit- 
ting of  no  change,  no  improvement.  If  there  was  nothing 
else  to  condemn  the  sytem  this  is  quite  sufficient. 

You  allude  to  the  comparative  strength  and  weakness  of 
Christianity  and  Infidelity,  and  malce  an  effort  to  prove 
that  the  first  is  growing  stronger  while  the  latter  is  already 
on  the  wane.  Tou  state  that  certain  fashionable  Christian 
churches  of  this  city  are  well  attended,  while  the  congre- 
gations of  Frothingham,  Alger  and  Adler  are  not  immense, 
etc.  I  concede  that  some  of  the  fashionable,  bon  ton 
churches  and  the  Catholic  churches  are  fully  attended,  but 
I  fear  your  prejudices  prevent  you  doing  justice  to  the  con« 
gregations  of  Frothingham,  Alger  and  Adler.  When  I 
have  listened  to  these  gentlemen  I  have  found  their  audi- 
ences large  and  the  seats  well  occupied,  and  I  am  informed 
that  the  attendance  at  their  meetings  is  uniformly  good.  I 
concede,  too,  that  Christianity  has  been  a  power  on  the 
earth,  and  is  to-day.  Although  it  has  never  reached  more 
than  half  the  number  of  those  who  believe  in  Buddha,  and 
only  about  equaled  the  number  of  adherents  to  Brahmanism 
and  perhaps  exceeded  by  a  trifle  the  followers  of  the 
Arabian  prophet,  it  has  nevertheless  been  one  of  the  great 
religions  of  the  world  and  holds  that  position  to-day.  It 
has  spread  itself  by  conquest  It  has  grasped  the  sword, 
and  in  the  name  of  its  Savior  and  its  creed  it  has  deluged 
this  fair  earth  in  blood.  In  this  sanguinary  devastation  it 
has  exceeded,  by  far,  all  the  religions  known  to  man.  It  has 
shed  enough  of  the  blood  of  men«  women  and  children  to 
float  all  the  navies  and  merchant-ships  on  the  globe,  while 
the  great  systems  of  Brahmanism  and  Buddhism  have  been 
peaceful  and  beneficent,  and  their  numbers  have  not  been 
increased  by  conquest  and  slaughter.  Christianity  and 
Mohammedaniam  have  drawn  the  awofd  freely  and  cauaed 


^nn  ■UMPSRIT'HBINinSTT  DIBOUflaiON. 


«tl 


Imman  blood  to  flow  in  rivers.  Those  two  religions  of 
monotheism  hav«  slaughtered  fully  300,0§0,^00  human 
i>eing8.  For  centuries  they  have  pursued  the  same  bloody 
religious  warfare  which  is  to-day  deluging  Southern  Europe 
with  blood. 

The  qualities  which  have  been  most  conducive  to  the 
growth  and  strength  of  Christianity  are  ignorance  and 
superstition.    These  made  the  Church  strong,  and  they 
iiave  kept  its  'power  intact    So  long  as  it  could  make  the 
masses  bdieve  that  there  was  a  tyrant  who  ruled  on  a 
•throne  a  little  a^ove  the  •clouds ;  that  he  commissioned  a 
vast  brigade  of  priests  to  attend  to  his  business  and  to  help 
iiold  the  people  in  subjection  ;  that  there  is  a  fearful  hell 
of  brimstone,  fire  and  flames  ready  to  emgulf  ail  who  will 
Aot  bow  and  acknowledge  the  faith  of  the  cross,  and  all 
who  dare  to  think  for  themselves,  so  long  has  the  rule  of 
that  system  of  religion  been  strong  in  the  world.    But 
assuredly  it  is  weakening.    During  the  last  two  or  three 
centuries,  and  more  particularly  during  the  last  half-cen- 
tury, light  has  been  breaking  in.    Learning  and  science, 
and  the  consequent   advance  of  clvilxEation,  have   been 
weakening  its  foundations.    Science  has  shown  those  who 
met  willing  to  read  the  truths  it  imparts  that  the  ground 
upon  which  Christianity  stands  is  untenable,  and  that  ita 
foundation  dogmas  are  untrue;  that  the  great  truths  of  the 
Universe  are  in  opposition  to  the  narrow-creeded  exactions 
which  the  Church   enjoins  upon  its  devotees.    There  is 
an  antagonism  lietween  Chri^lan  credulity  and  the  teach- 
ings of  science.    As  the  knowledge  of  the  truths  of  Nature 
is  improved  by  the  masses,  the  grip  of  the  Church  is  loos- 
ened and  the  power  of  priestcraft  is  weakened.    A  strong 
faith  in  the  myths  and  fables  of  the  past  is  incompatible 
with  the  revelations  of  science  and  truth,  and  in  the  con- 
flict which  has  begun,  and  is  sure  to  continue  and  increase, 
these  are  certain  to  triumph,  and  the  old  myths  must  retire 
to  the  rear  and  sink  down,  ultimately.  Into  the  waters  of 


U4 


^ 

.1 


TWm  HXJMFHBBT-BCTWmr  BiBcinwioir. 

obllYion.  The  destiny  of  the  human  mind  is  to  be  free  and 
antrammeled.  On  the  pinions  of  trath  it  is  destined  to  rise 
abOTe  the  mists  and  fogs  which  settle  oyer  the  Church,  and 
though  the  rnachineiy  and  organization  of  the  same  is  still 
perfect,  and  the  power  of  priestcraft  is  hard  to  be  broken;  it 
is  only  a  matter  of  time.  The  struggle  will  not  slacken ;  the 
contest  will  not  cease  until  truth  and  reason  shall  triumph 
OTer  errors  and  myths.  The  fetters  and  shackles  that  bind 
men  shall  be  remoyed  and  men  shaUbefree, 

In  connection  with  the  subject  of  the  decline  in  the 
^tality  and  power  of  Christianity  in  this  country  allow  me 
to  quote  a  few  remarks  made  by  your  brother  clergyman^ 
Rey.  Dewitt  Talmage,  of  the  Brooklyn  Tabernacle:  "Oh, 
we  have  magnificent  church  machinery  in  this  country;  we 
haye  sixty  thousand  American  ministers ;  we  haye  costly 
music  ;  we  haye  great  Sunday-schooh,  and  yet  I  giye  yoa 
the  appalling  statistics,  that  in  the  last  twenty-fiye  years, 
laying  aside  last  year,  the  statistics  of  which  I  haye  nol 
seen,  within  the  last  twenty-fiye  years  the  churches  of  Qod 
haye  averaged  less  than  two  conversions  a  year  each.  There 
has  been  an  average  of  four  or  five  deaths  in  the  churches. 
How  soon,  at  that  rate,  will  this  world  be  brought  to  Qod  f 
We  gain  two  ;  we  lose  four.  Eternal  God,  what  will  this 
eome  to  f  Ton  see  your  brother  takes  a  discouraging 
view  of  the  coming  fate  of  the  Church.  The  prospect  is 
anything  but  cheering  to  him.  Talmage.  of  course,  would 
not  utter  such  gloomy  words  did  he  not  know  them  to  be 
true. 

The  growth  of  skepticism  and  the  increase  of  doubt  in 
the  dogmas  ol  theology  are  apparent  on  every  side.  They 
are  working  into  the  churches,  and  the  clergy  themselves 
are  badly  affected  with  the  prevailing  doubt.  In  confiden- 
lial  conversation  with  private  friends  many  of  them  admit 
that  they  have  their  misgivings  about  the  the  truth  of  what 
they  were  brought  up  to  believe.  The  trade  of  the  priest 
is  all  they  know,  and  to  insoie  a  good  Uvelihood  they  cott- 


THB  HX71CPHBKT- BBHirBTT  DlSOUSSIOir. 

tinue  to  preach;  but  their  confidence  in  ecclesiasticism  ii 
greatly  shaken.  Some  estimate  that  half  the  members 
of  the  churches  are  doubting  unbelievers  in  the  creeds  that 
the  Church  enjoins. 

The  spirit  of  doubt  and  skepticism  is  apparent  in  many 
of  the  newly-issued  books  that  are  appearing,  as  well  as  in 
the  journals  and  magazines  of  the  day.    Frequently  we^see 
the  most  radical  articles  appearing  where  we  would  hardly 
look  for  them.    More  and  more  are  becoming  bold  enough 
to  speak  out  and  tell  their  thoughte.    The  priesthood  will 
still  use  their  best  exertions  to  hold  the  masses  subservient 
to  their  will  and  purpose,  and  they  will  doubtless  continue 
to  do  this  so  long  as  the  avocation  is  remunerative.    But  one 
after  one  and  ten  after  ten  they  are  emerging  from  the  mists 
of  faith  and  are  coming  out  into  the  sunshine  of  truth.    As 
a  sample  of  the  newspaper  and  magazine  articles  that  are 
appearing  from  time  to  time,  I  will  first  give  a  quotation 
from  an  editorial  in  a  recent  Telegram  upon  "Religious 
Superstition."    It  says:  "  An  essay  entitled  *  Modern  Skep- 
ticism and  How  to  Meet  It,*  is  presently  to  be  read  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  before  the  General  Association  of 
the  Congregational  Church  of  this  State.    It  cannot  be 
doubted  that  Dr.  Abbott  will  address  himself  with  enthusi- 
asm to  the  task,  and  that  his  defense  of  Christianity  will  be 
tinctured  by  strong  personal  devotion  to  the  cause.    But 
for  a  successful  assault  to  be  carried  against  the  strong 
intrenchments  on  the  side  of  Infidelity  set  up  during  the 
last  few  years  by  many  members  of  the  scientific  world, 
a  leader  is  required  of  vaster  powers  than  those  possessed 
by  the  defender  in  question.     It  must  be  remembered,  too, 
that  it  is  idle  to  defend  the  dogmas  of  Christianity  merely 
because  they  have  now  survived  many  hundreds  of  years. 
Scientific  leaders  are  notorious  for  their  love  of  truth. 
They  follow  where  she  leads  them,  no  matter  where  the 
bourne  may  be.    This  is  not  true  of  Christian  leaders. 
They  foUow  according  to  the  bent  of  their  prejudices,  their 


self-interest,  their  bigotry.  They  deiire  to  tee  only  thOM 
things  proved  which  they  believe  or  wish  to  believe  true. 
Dr.  Abbott  will  find  the  task  which  he  has  set  for  himself 
one  beyond  his  powers.** 

As  embracing  deep  thought  upon  one  of  the  subjects  we 
have  been  discussing,  I  will  insert  the  following  which 
recently  appeared  in  the  Nineteenth  Century: 

**  In  former  times,  when  Atheism  was  vague  and  stam- 
mering, incomplete  and  unorganized,  it  was  condemned 
and  suppressed  with  horror,  anger  and  indignation.  Its 
apostles  were  execrated  as  monsters  doomed  to  eternal  tor- 
ments. The  world  cast  them  out,  and  the  Church  burned 
them.  But  now  that  Atheism  is  complete  and  organized, 
without  concealment  and  without  shame,  its  name  is  not 
even  a  term  of  mild  reproach.  On  the  contrary,  its  most 
notorious  professors  are  honored  and  looked  up  to  by  the 
world  in  general,  and  listened  to  with  a  respectful  patience 
by  even  their  professed  opponents.  Deans  avow  friend- 
ship for  men  compared  with  whom  'Voltaire  is  orthodox, 
and  Cardinals  with  such  men  gravely  discuss  beliefs  which 
Voltaire  would  have  thought  it  horrible  to  have  questioned. 
The  reason  o^  this  is  obvious.  Atheism  has  come  forward 
under  cranged  conditions.  It  is  based  upon  new  founda- 
tions* it  <8  ar^imated  with  a  new  temper.  For  the  first  time 
it  /ebts  i*9t»lt  not  on  the  private  speculations  of  a  rebellious 
iutelJoct^  not  on  the  ravings  of  a  vile  Parisian  populace 
drunk  with  the  wine  of  politics  and  suffering  from  politi- 
cal delirium  tremens,  but  on  the  deep  and  broad  founda- 
tions of  research,  experiment,  and  proof.  It  has  lost  all 
that  insolence  of  private  passion  and  of  private  judgment 
which  used  to  make  it  as  offensive  to  men*s  practical  in- 
stincts as  it  was  to  their  theoretical  convictions.  Our 
modern  Atheists  in  profession,  and  to  a  great  measure  in 
fact,  are  entirely  free  of  the  old  personal  bravado ;  they 
claim  to  teach  with  authority,  because  they  have  been  con- 
tent to  loam  irith  humility.    For  they,  too,  have  their 


Tsi  nuMTKRCT-BiiniBTT  nmswmnt. 


church,  their  infallible  teacher,  to  whom  they  profess  an 
implicit  and  devout  obedience.  And  this  teacher  is  un- 
doubtedly an  august  one.  It  is  none  other  than  Nature 
herself,  as  our  powerful  science  compels  her  answers  from 
her— Nature^  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word,  including  the 
history  of  th«  Universe  and  the  history  of  the  human  race, 
and  the  laws  in  obedience  to  which  this  history  has  devel- 
oped itself.  Here,  we  are  told,  is  our  one  source  of  knowl- 
edge; here  we  learn  the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth. 
Nature  beans  witness  about  every  conceivable  subject ; 
there  is  no  rational  question  which,  if  we  do  but  ask  it 
properly,  Bt^e  will  not  answer.  She  will  require  no  faith 
from  us;  she  will  ask  us  to  take  nothing  on  trust.  Every- 
thing that  she  teaches  us  she  will  prove  and  verify;  and 
there  is  no  variableness  in  her,  nor  any  shadow  of  turning, 
''dome,  then  " — this  is  the  appeal  that  our  modern  Athe- 
ists make  to  us — "and  let  us  learn  of  Nature ;  let  us  listen 
to  the  voice  of  truth  1*'  And  what  does  truth  tell  us  t 
Among  many  things  truth  tells  us  two,  which  are  of  prime 
importance,  and  which  are  universally  intelligible  to  the 
human  race — there  is  no  God,  and  there  is  no  future  life. 
The  notion  of  the  first  is  unnecessary,  and  that  of  the 
second  is  ridiculous.  In  the  name  of  truth,  then,  let  us 
cast  these  lies  away  from  us,  however  painfully  for  the 
moment  we  may  feel  their  loss,  however  closely  they  may 
be  bound  up  for  us  with  memories  of  the  past.  But  we  are 
not  left  with  this  exhortation  only.  Something  more  is 
added  to  sustain  and  stimulate  us.  These  lies,  we  are  told, 
if  we  will  but  look  them  boldly  in  the  face,  instead  of 
blinking  at  them  out  of  deference  to  their  supposed  divin- 
ity, we  shall  see  to  be  not  lies  only,  but  profoundly  immoral 
lies.  Is  is,  therefore,  in  the  name  not  of  selfish  indulgence, 
not  of  license  and  free-living,  but  of  sacred  truth  and  all 
the  severest  principles,  that  we  are  invited  to  accept  the 
creed  of  Atheism  and  to  cast  out  religion.  Thus  the 
Atheism  of  to-day,  though  theoretically  destructive,  is 


}' 


i 


VBB  BUllPHSIT'BBimSTT  mSOlTSHOy. 


practically  cooserrative.  It  no  longer  assails  society  as  H 
is,  or  any  of  those  rules  that  sustain  it,  or  the  chastened 
atfections  that  are  supposed  to  make  it  worth  sustaining. 
It  is  associated  no  longer  with  any  dissolute  wit,  with  any 
emel  and  brilliant  cynicism,  or  with  the  fascinations  of 
lawless  love.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  on  the  whole  somewhat 
dull ;  and  to  say  the  least  of  it,  it  is  eminently  respectable. 
It  is  the  Atheism  of  the  yigil,  not  of  the  orgy;  and  its  char- 
acter when  developed  is  solemn,  almost  puritanical.  Study 
the  language,  the  conduct,  even  the  faces  of  its  exponents* 
and  signs  will  be  apparent  everywhere  of  gravity  and 
severe  earnestness.  These  are  men,  we  see  in  a  glance, 
who  hold  life  a  serious  thing— a  thing  not  to  be  trifled  away 
in  idleness,  however  harmless,  or  in  licentious  self-indul- 
gence, however  refined  or  graceful.  What  is  really  of 
value  in  life,  what  men  should  really  strive  for,  are  things 
to  be  reached  only  by  self-denial  and  labor  and  a  vigilant 
rigor  in  the  guidance  and  control  of  our  passions.  Those 
who  pay  no  heed  to  the  better  part,  but  who  saunter,  who 
lounge,  who  smile,  who  sneer  through  life,  are  condemned 
by  the  Atheists  even  more  grimly  than  by  the  believers.'* 

IVom  one  position  of  the  above  writer  I  shall  perhaps 
claim  to  dissent.  I  do  not  limit  the  power  of  Nature 
to  carry  human  existence  beyond  this  life.  I  have  felt 
compelled  to  acknowledge  that  it  may  be  in  the  economy 
of  the  Universe  to  continue  individual  life  into  another 
state  of  existence;  that  this  is  the  rudimentary,  and  the 
other  the  ultimate.  I  claim  to  have  no  special  knowledge 
upon  the  subject  nor  of  the  nature  and  locality  of  that  other 
world,  but  I  have  witnessed  phenomena  that  I  was  satisfied 
were  not  fraudulent,  and  which  led  me  to  this  conclusion. 
With  this  exception,  the  writer  is  sound;  and  it  is  possible, 
too,  that  this  may  not  be  an  exception  after  alL  Science 
may  ultimately  explain  all  not  now  well  understood. 

In  connection  with  the  subject  of  the  spread  of  skepti- 
ciim  I  will  only  remark  that  it  is  striking  terror  into  the 


TD  HUMPHREY-BENNETT  DlflCUSSIOlT. 


696 


Tery  heart  of  the  Church.  The  great  question  that  is  now 
propounded  with  so  much  anxiety  and  mental  agony  is, 
How  shall  the  spread  of  Infidelity  be  stayed  T  This  mo- 
mentous question  troubled  the  Pan-Presbyterian  Council 
recently  assembled  in  Edinburg  more  than  all  others,  and 
it  will  take  aU  the  skill  and  cunning  of  the  theologians  to 
solve  it. 

I  will  take  very  little  space  to  review  the  ground  we  have 
gone  over,  or  to  sum  up  my  portion  of  the  discussion.    Al- 
low me  to  say  I  think  you  have  utterly  failed  to  establish  your 
side  of  the  questions  discussed;  and  I  have  been  struck 
with  the  weakness  of  your  arguments  and  with  the  little 
dodges,  petty  quibbles,  and  theological  twaddle  you  have 
found  it  necessary  to  resort  to.    Before  the  discussion  took 
place,  I  thought  more  could  be  said  in  advocacy  of  your 
views  than  you  have  said,  although  I  am  convinced  that  few 
of  your  brethren  of  the  sacerdotal  order  possess  more  ability 
than  yourself.    With  all  due  modesty,  I  claim  that  I  have 
shown,  under  our  first  proposition,  that  those  who  did  the 
most  to  aid  the  cause  of  American  independence  and  to 
establish  a  free  system  of  government  were  unbelievers  in 
orthodox  Christianity  and  the  divinity  of  the  Bible.    Under 
the  second  proposition,  I  think  I  established  the  fact  that 
unbelievers  have  done  more  to  aid  the  advance  and  spread 
of  learning  and  science  than  believers  have.    On  this  last 
proposition,  relative  to  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the  Bible, 
I  claim  that  I  have  shown  that  the  Bible  possesses  no  qual- 
ities to  prove  it  a  superhuman  production,  and  that  it  is 
entitled  to  no  more  respect  than  numerous  other  books  that 
men  have  written  and  printed.    I  think  that  I  have  made 
it  clear  to  unprejudiced  minds  that  Infidelity,  or  Radicalism, 
has  more  proofs  of  truth  than  (he  Bible  has  of  divinity.    I 
stated  clearly,  and  was  prepared  to  prove  it,  that  Chrisaan- 
ity  is  not  an  original  system  of  religion;   that  all  its 
dogmas  were  borrowed  from  the  older  systems.    I  have 
repeated  this  some  three  times,  hoping  you  would  attempt 


tBM  mumrBRmt'Wamxvn  mtomNUOR. 


rat  wmp^mMt-mmgynst  maaofrnQM. 


697 


I- 


i 


to  refute  it,  tluit  I  miglit  adduce  the  proofs.  You  haTe 
BOt  disputed  it,  but  tacitly  admitted  its  truth,  and  I  wisb 
this  point  to  be  noticed  and  remembered.  By  your  silence 
upon  this  charge  you  have  confessed  that  Christianity  is 
not  original,  but  that  it  was  borrowed  almost  entirely 
from  paganism,  and  is  no  better  than  the  obsolete  systems 
of  religion  in  yogue  twenty-five  centuries  or  more  ago. 

It  is  true  I  have  covered  more  space  than  you  have,  but 
I  have  introduced  no  topic  not  mentioned  by  yourself,  and 
have  endeavored  to  confine  myself  exclusively  to  the  sub- 
jects treated  of  by  you.  You  throw  out  insinuations 
about  the  cuttle-fish  style  of  conducting  an  argument. 
Your  allusion  is  about  as  clear  as  the  water  may  be  sup- 
posed to  be  about  your  cuttle-fish  when  making  an  attack, 
but  I  cannot  think  it  fairly  applies  to  me.  I  am  aware  that  I 
am  somewhat  verbose  and  that  I  often  repeat  myself, 
but  I  do  not  think  my  language  is  ambiguous  or  difficult  to 
be  understood.  I  do  not  try  to  conceal  myself  nor  the  views 
I  entertain.  Like  some  others  of  your  insinuations,  it 
seems  wholly  tmcalled  for.  You  have  not  been  curtailed 
in  anything  you  wished  to  say.  I  have  printed  every  word 
you  handed  in,  and  I  would  not  have  denied  you  the  same 
space  I  have  occupied.  Your  style  is  brief  and  concise, 
while  mine  is  more  diffuse.  I  make  longer  quotations 
than  you  do,  believing  it  more  fair  to  the  author  quoted, 
and  better  for  the  reader,  than  to  select  a  line  or  two 
here  and  there  which  connot  give  a  Aill  exposition  of  the 
author's  views. 

I  cheerfully  concede  to  yon  greater  ability  than  I  pos- 
sess. Your  advantages  have  been  superior  to  mine,  and 
your  reading  far  more  extensive,  but  I  am  Ailiy  convinced 
that  I  have  the  truth  on  my  side,  and  with  my  inferior 
abilities  I  think  I  have  made  this  comparatively  clear.  I 
will  leave  it  with  our  readers  to  decide  which  has  given  the 
best  arguments,  and  on  which  side  victory  has  perched. 

Peihaps  we  have  both  shown  sooM  {o^udice  and  par^ 


tiality.  iie^ng  futly  Impn^s^d  duit  Chiistiani^  is  a  system 
of  shams  and  «4d  faUes.  borrowed,  as  I  have  charged,  from 
older  pagan  systems,  I  have  lost  nearly  all  the  respect  I 
once  had  for  it,  but  I  have  intended  to  be  fair  and  truth- 
ful in  all  cases.  You  have  evinced  not  a  little  unfriendli- 
ness towards  Infidels,  Atheists  and  Liberal  Clubs.  I  can 
not  think  strange  of  this,  for  they  are  working  in  opposi- 
tion to  your  line  of  thought  and  your  avocation,  and  it  is 
only  the  spirit  so  violently  exhibited  by  your  predecessors. 
I  thank  you  for  the  courtesy  you  have  shown  me.  I  have 
found  our  personal  intercourse  pleasant  and  agreeable, 
and  I  trust  a  friendship  has  grown  up  between  us  during 
this  discussion  that  will  continue  for  years.  I  respect  you 
for  your  excellent  qualities.  I  have  published  your  views 
wltb  the  same  willingness  that  I  have  my  own,  and  I  doubt 
not  you  accord  to  me  a  due  spirit  of  candor  and  liberality 
in  laying  your  language  and  views  before  my  numeroub 
readers  with  the  same  freedom  that  I  have  my  own.  It  !» 
mere  than  any  Christian  paper  in  the  country  would  do  by 
me.  I  very  much  doubt  if  any  orthodox  periodical  in  the 
United  States  would  publish  a  single  Infidel  letter  of  my 
writing,  while  I  have  given  in  full  thirteen  of  yours,  affording 
you  access  to  a  class  of  readers  that  you  could  not  other 
wise  reach.  Please  give  Infidelity  due  credit  for  this  in 
stance  of  fairness  and  liberality.  Should  you  at  any  future 
time  wish  to  engage  in  another  discussion  upon  theological 
subjects,  my  columns  shall  be  open  to  you,  and  if  you  can 
find  no  other  opponent  I  will  offer  you  my  own  humble 
services  again.  I  would  be  very  glad  could  the  light  of 
truth  so  shine  into  your  mind  that  you  could  be  able  to 
see  that  there  are  greater  truths  in  Nature  and  Science  than 
is  contained  in  the  old  theological  ideas  that  have  so  long 
ruled  Christendom,  and  that  you  might  feel  it  incumbent 
on  you  to  tear  off  the  shackles  of  ecclesiasticism  and  intol- 
erance and  to  come  to  the  belief  that  there  is  a  greater  good 
Ib  Katun  tod  a  greater  truth  in  the  leaLm  of  Sdence  and 


TSB  BiniFinUIT-lKf]fSTT  dhoomiok 


TBB  HnCPKBlT-BlinnTT  NBomsiov. 


feAson  than  in  the  Mief  that  a  personal  Ood  devifled  tho 
world,  created  man  weak  and  fallible,  placed  a  tempter  be* 
fore  him,  knowing  that  he  would  be  led  astray,  and  then 
thrusts  him  and  his  countless  posterity  into  everlasting 
flames  for  doing  what  he  could  not  help  doing  under  the 
conditions  that  surrounded  him.  I  shall  still  indulge  the 
hope  that  you  may  yet  be  able  to  take  an  advanced  step 
and  leave  the  domain  of  theological  myths  and  legendi* 
Tou  are  a  young  man,  I  trust  with  a  long  life  before  you  ; 
you  have  a  clear  intellect,  and  there  is  much  ground  for 
hope. 

It  is  a  great  thing  to  change  the  religion  of  a  people.  To 
throw  oS  the  effects  of  early  education,  and  to  becomi 
divested  of  the  influence  of  the  old  traditions  and  legends 
is  a  herculean  task,  but  it  has  got  to  be  accomplished.  The 
old  systems  that  the  world  has  thus  far  accepted  have  not 
benefited  their  devotees  ;  the  gods  that  have  been  held  up 
for  worship,  and  on  whose  account  and  on  account  of  whose 
priests,  uncounted  millions  of  wealth  have  been  wrung  from 
the  hard-toiling  masses— have  done  nothing  for  the  world, 
and  humanity  demands  that  they  shall  be  dethroned  and 
cease  to  be  objects  of  reverence.  All  the  old  systems  of 
religion  have  proved  to  be  failures  and  only  served  as 
obstructions  to  mankind  on  the  great  highway  of  life's 
journey.  The  human  race  has  subdued  this  planet  so  far 
as  it  has  been  subdued  ;  it  has  made  it  a  garden  in  so  far  as 
it  is  a  garden  ;  but  there  are  yet  many  desolate  wilds  to  be 
improved  by  the  industrious  hand  of  man.  A  great  deal  has 
yet  to  be  done  in  learning  the  true  science  of  life,  in  knowing 
how  to  obtain  the  greatest  amount  of  happiness  from  our 
existence,  and  how  to  make  happy  those  around  us;  how  to 
live,  how  to  produce  a  healthy,  well-balanced,  happy  race 
upon  the  earth;  how  to  secure  pleasant  lives,  and  now  to 
make  them  useful,  is  of  far  more  consequence  to  us  to-daj 
than  can  be  the  blood  of  a  man  who  died  nineteen  hundred 
years  ago.    It  is  time  we  dropped  the  old  religions  of  tbo 


gods,  and  adopted  the  better  religion  of  man.  Love  of 
mankind  is  the  highest  elevation  to  which  we  can  attain, 
and  therein  lies  our  whole  duty.  We  can  do  good  or  evil 
to  ourselves  and  to  our  fellow-beings,  but  we  can  do  neither 
to  the  gods.  Even  if  there  are  such  beings,  they  are  so 
far  removed  from  us,  and  we  know  so  little^of  them,  and 
they  care  so  11  ale  for  us,  that  our  neglect  will  not  offend 
Kor  our  oblations  cajole  them.  The  objects  of  our  concern 
are  around  us  and  with  us,  and  they  claim  our  undivided 
attention. 

You  speak  of  the  havoc  of  sin.    The  sins  have  been 
entirely  toward  the  human  race,  and  here  is  where  the  ref- 
ormation should  be  begun  and  continued.     Let  us  our- 
selves endeavor  to  live  truo,  pure,  noble  lives,  and  help 
others  to  do  the  same.    Let  us  understand  that  each  indi- 
vidual must  secure  his  own  happinees  and  his  own  Justifi- 
cation.   Let  us  not  depend  for  our  peace  and  happiness 
upon  the  good  deeds  of  any  man  nor  lurk  behind  the  cov- 
ering of  another's  virtues.    Let  us  be  pure,  be  unselfish  and 
be  upright.    Let  us  scorn  to  act  from  low  motives.    Let  us 
cease  to  balance  our  heavenly  gains  by  our  earthly  losses, 
and  to  chuckle  over  a  credit-mark  on  the  recording  angel's 
book  when  we  have  performed  good  actions  here.    Let  us 
substitute  the  service  of  man,  who  is  ever  around  us,  in 
place  of  the  service  of  unknown  gods  whom  we  can  never 
know  anything  about.    Let  us  increase  real  knowledge  and 
lessen  superstition  and  faith.    Let  us  use  our  entire  exer- 
tions to  hasten  this  reformation,  and  strive  to  make  of  this 
earth  as  perfect  a  paradise  as  is  possible  with  the  conditions 
which  attend  us. 

••Oreads,  empires,  systems,  rot  with  a^e. 

But  the  srreat  people's  ever  youthful/ 

And  it  shall  write  the  future  page 

To  our  humanity  more  truthful. 

The  gnarllest  heart  hath  tender  chords 

.   To  waken  at  the  name  of  "Brother." 


f 


ii 


Aftd  time  ooBi«fl  when  ■oorpioB  words 
Wa  Bhall  thall  not  speak  to  itlM  ••«* 
Tis  oomlns  1  fes.  'tis  oominff  1 


othec. 


••Out  of  the  lltfht,  ye  priests,  nor  flinff 
Tour  dark,  cold  shadows  on  us  longer  I 
Aside,  thou  world-wide  curse,  called  kinff* 
The  people's  step  is  auioker.  stronger  I 
There's  a  divinity  within     . 

That  makes  men  sreat  whene'er  they  will  its 
Ck>d  works  with  all  whe  dare  to  win* 
And  the  time  cometh  to  reveal  It 
'Tls  oominc  1  yes.  'tis  ooming. 

••Fraternity!  loye's  other  name! 

Bear  heaven-oonnectinff  link  of  1»eliiffl 
Then  shall  we  grasp  thy  ROlden  dream. 

As  souls  fuU-statured  grow  far-seeing  I 
Thou  Shalt  unfold  our  better  part. 

And  ki  our  life-cup  yield  more  hontyl 
Light  up  with  joy  the  poor  man's  heart. 
And  love's  own  world  with  smiles  more  luniif. 
*Tia  coming!  yes.  'tis  coming! 

••Ay.  it  must  come!  the  tyrant's  throne 
Is  crumbling,  with  our  hot  tears  rusted  s 
The  sword  earth's  mighty  have  leant  on 

Is  cankered,  with  our  best  blood  erustedl 
Boom!  for  the  men  of  mind  make  way! 

Ye  priests  and  tyrants  l—pause  no  longer! 
Ye  cannot  stay  the  opening  day! 
The  world  rolls  on.  the  light  grows  stronger^ 
The  people's  advent's  eomlngl" 

In  the  bonds  of  hnniftiiity  and  fraternity.  I  am  sinoerdj 


jour  friend, 


D.  M.  BsinnRT. 


INDEX.* 


Adams  (John)  not  an  Infi- 
del. H.  80 
Architectural  Skill  of  the 

Israelites,  B.  116 

Alexandrian  Library.  H. 

162.  B.  171 

Arguments  (ten)  in  Favor 

of  the  Bible,  H.  406 

Arguments  (fifty)  Opposed 

to  the  Bible,  B.  431 

Atheism,  from  the  Nine- 
teenth Century,  B.         523 
Believers  in  the  Majority  B.  6 
Bennett   Shown  to  be  a 
Christian,  B.  88 

Bible  and  Scieoce,  H.  102, 

B.  108,  H.  128,  B.  132,   181 
Book  of  Job,  B.  133 

Barnes  (Albert  Dr.)  Quota- 
tion from,  B.  835 
Bruno,  B.  146 
Brownlow  on  Clergymen, 

B.  296 

Bible  Canon,  H.  839,  B.    508 
Bible  Objections  Consid- 
ered. EL  841 
Bible  Contradictions,  B. 

868  "^ 

Bible!  Arguments  for,  H.  406 
Bible.  Degradation  of  Wo- 
man, B.  505 
Bible  Tyranny  and  Des- 
potism, B.  604 
Christianity  and  Universi- 
ties, H.  i^ 


Christianity  and  Science, 
B,  139,  H.  161, 182,        187 

Christian  Publishers,  H.   128 

Copernicus,  remarks  on,    146 

Cooper  (Peter),  reference 
to,  B.  150,  H.  157,  B. 
167,  H.  194,  B.  210,         825 

Cornell  University,  B,  150, 
H.  157,  B.  169.  H.  195, 
B.  211 

Calvin,  B.  168. 216,  H.  271. 
B.  823 

Crimes  of  the  Patriarchs,  231 
B.  tiSl 

Crimes  of  Prominent  Chria. 
tians,  B.  233 

Clergymcn*s  Sensualities. 
B.  237,  282 

Christian  Dogmas,  Rites 
and  Symbols,  borroweu 
from  Paganism,  B.         26Si 

Contradictions  of  the  Bi- 
ble, B.  868,  H.  895,  B.    422 

Contradictions  of  Paine, 
H.  396,  B.  425 

Canon  of  the  Bible,  B.      508 

Council  of  Nice,  B.  ^10 

Draper,  quotations  from, 
B.  147,  191 

Death  of  Hume,  B.  515 

D'Holbach,  B.  319 

Divinity  of  the  Bible,  rea- 
sons therefor,  H.  889,  B  865 

Design  Argument,  H.  404, 
B. 


•  H.  indicates  Humphrey.  B.  Bennett 


633 


INDEX. 


Deposits  of  Marine  Debris 

on  Mountain  Tops^  B.  425 
Doctrines  about  Ueli,  B.  449 
Decline  of  Christianity,  518 
Existence  of  God,  H.  401, 

B.  453,  405 

Existence  of  the  Uaiyerse,493 
Foreign  aids  to  Atnericana,  4 
Franklin  a  Christian,  H.  14 
Franklin  not  a  Christian, 

B.  21,  48 

Franklin,  qaotations  from,23 
Framers  of  U.  S.  Consti- 
tution, B.  88,  168 
Freethinkers  not  sensual- 
ists, B.  187 
Faith  and  Credulity,  B.  170 
French  Revolution,  B.  179, 

H.  197,  B.  212,  B.  809 

Guizot,  quotations  from,  142 
Girard  College,  H.  184 

Gerderman  on  the  Catho- 
lic Priesthood,  B.  297 
Guild  on  Clergymen,  B.    SOI 
Hamilton,  (Alexander),  m 

Christian,  H.  18 

Hypatia,  Murdered,  B. 

141,  H.  163.  B.  178 

Hallam,  quotations  from,  142 
Huxley,  qaotations  from, 

B.  148,  179 

Hebrew  CiYilization,  B. 

134,  138,  H.  160,  B.  172 
Holy  Inquisition,  B.  185 
Hobbes,  B.  816 

Haiton,  B.  462 

Human  Sacrifice  in  the 

Bible,  B.  606 

Ini^ersoU,  shown  to  be  a 

Christian,  B.  38 

lasersoll,  quotations  from 
B.  74,  141, 143, 155,  823, 
889,  446 

Inventors  and  discoverers, 

H.  127,  B.  151 

Ins'nceriryof  Infidels,  H. 

202,  B.  218 

Immorality  Consistent 
with  Infidelity,  H.  203, 


B.  221,  225.  H.  273 

Infidels  illiberal,  H.  201, 

B.  219,  225 

Infidels  hypocritical,  H. 

206,  B.  228 
Infidels  superstitions,  H. 

207,  B.  236 
Infidels  blindly  credulous,207 
Infidels  unprogressive, 

H.  208.  B.  228 

Infidels  charged  with  im- 
morality, H.  201.  H.      364 
Infidel  recantations,  B.    314 
Infidelity  disintegrating,  826 
Intelligence,  B.  457 

Increase  of  Infidelity,  B.  618 
Jefferson  on  Washington,  26 
Jefferson  not  a  Deist,  32,  76 
Jefferson,  quotations  from,  41 
Jefferson  an  unbeliever. 

B.  41-46,  84 

Jews  living  in  tents  and 

not  civilized,  134,  138,  196 
Jesus  not  a  scholar,  B.  140 
Jews  cannibals,  314,  838 

Jehovah  delineated,  B.     814 
B.  384,  422 

Lossing  on  the  Signers 
of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  H.  5 

Love    of    Liberty,     not 

Christianity,  B.  8 

Lincoln  not  an  Infidel 

H  81,  101 

Lincoln  an  Infidel, 

B,  93,  107,  181 

Lecky,  quot.  from,  B.  144 
Luther.  B.  218 

Museums  and  Libraries, 

H.  120,  B.  149 

My  lbs  going  out  of  fash- 
ion, H.  158,  B.  174,  H.  197 
Multiplicity  of  Sects,  fl.  277 
Mill,  by  Conway,  B.  808 
Mirabeau*s  death,  B.  818 
Mind,  B.  456 

Monotheism,  B.  607 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  B.  229 
Owen,  Robert  Dale,  11, 


«• 


25,  86,  131,  176 

Ubscenity  of  the  Bible,  B. 

178,  H.  198,  B.  367 

Our  laws  not  Christian  in 

origin,  B.  189 

Objections  to  the  Bible,  341 
Paine  a  Christian,  B.  37 

Paine  criticised,  H.  60-58 
Paine  defended  B.  59-9*,  87 
Printing,  art  of,  129,  152 
Palestine,  134.  138,  160, 172, 
„196.  211 

Priestcraft,  nature  of,  B.  261 
Quotation  from  Judge  Storv, 
^  H.  *  78 

Quotation  from  Pollock,  152 
*      **    Paley,  B.  178 

**  Mark  Twain,  186 
"  Thej.  Clapp,  216 
"  Beecher,  B.  387 
"  **  Orthodox  wri- 
ters concerning  Hell,  449 
3uot.  from  Tyndall,  B.  490 
larrels  at  Christian 
Couucils  511 

Quot.  from  The  Telegram,  521 
*•  "  19th  Century  522 
Rush  (Benj.)aCbri8tian,  13 
Kawson  (Prof.  A.  L.)  172,  211 
Reign  of  Terror,  B.  179.  212; 
HI  197 

R'>be8pierre,  H.  269,  337;  B. 
309,  355 

Religionists  not  liable  to 

insanity,  H.-.    .•.    ;     2j{r6: 
Religion  not  ilicoilsiitQnt  2gr9: 
Slavery  sustar&dd'bV  the   *• 
Bible,  H.  79;  B.  89 

S'avery  and  puCrj9ttaJiUy/8(l ' 
Science  and  Ih^  JJlBlfe,  *.  102,' 
a  108, 132, lit" 


Solomon  not  a  great  man,  B. 

118,  137,  177;  H  123 

Smithsonian  Institute,      1^6 

Science  Hall,  B.  231 

Shelley,  B.  809 

Tne  Devil  shown  to  be  a 

Christian,  B.  80 

The    Israelites   as   musi- 
cians, H.  104;  B.  116 
The  Apostles  not  educated 

men,  B.  140 

The  Early  Christian  Fath- 
ers not  scientific,  140 
The  Midianites,  B.             382 
Ten  arguments  in  favor  of 

the  Bible,  H.  406  ;  B  426 
Tyranny  and  despotism  of 

Bible,  504 

Talmage  on  the  decline  of 

Christianity,  620 

Unbelievers  in  revolution- 
ary times,  B.  7 
Underwood  (B  P.)  shown 

to  be  a  Christian,  B.  38 
Universe,  thoughts  of,  B.  493 
Vnnini,  B.  146 

Voltaire,  H.  338,  B.  857 

Wesley  unfriendly  to 
American  liberty,  B.  9, 
82.  106 

Wesley  not  unfriendly  to 

American  liberty,  H.      74 
"'Vashington  an  Unbeliev- 
>^t,  ^...n,  2P  88 

W^Si«itfgti>n>  believer,  H.  17 
Wh^t*  Maked  a  hian  a 

Christian,  B.  19 

Woin*iat8*d*e^radatioIi  in 
:  lie -^^blc,  U:  505 


•  ••• 

•  •     • 

•  ••• 

•  •  •• 


»    a 


•  •, 


•     • 

■I     >    4 


II 


I 


IKDKK0 


633 


TNDBZ. 


Deposits  of  Marine  Debris 

OB  Mountain  Tops,  B.  425 
Doctrioes  about  Hell,  B.  449 
Decline  of  Christianity,  518 
Existence  of  God,  H.  401, 

B.  453,  495 

Exislence  of  the  Uaiyerse,493 
Foreign  aids  to  Atnericans,  4 
Franklin  a  Christian,  H.  14 
Franklin  not  a  Christian, 

B.  21,  48 

Franklin,  quotations  from,23 
Framers  of  U.  8.  Consti- 
tution, B.  88,  166 
Freethinkers  not  sensual- 
ists, B.  137 
Faith  and  Credulity,  B.  170 
French  Revolution,  B.  179, 

H.  197,  B.  212,  B.  809 

Guizot,  quotations  from,  142 
Girard  College,  H.  164 

Gerderman  on  the  Catho- 
lic Priesthood,  B.  297 
Guild  on  Clergymen,  B.    801 
Hamilton,  (Alexander),  a 

Christian,  H.  18 

Hypatia.  Murdered,  B. 

141,  H.  163,  B.  178 

Hallam,  quotations  from,  142 
Huxley,  quotations  from, 

B.  146,  179 

Hebrew  Civilization,  B. 

134,  138,  H.  160,  B.  172 
Holy  Inquisition,  B.  185 
Hobbes,  B.  316 

Hutton,  B.  462 

Human  Sacrifice  in  the 

Bible,  B.  506 

In^rersoll,  shown  to  be  a 

Christian,  B.  38 

lasersoll,  quotations  from 
B.  74,  141, 143, 155.  823, 
389.  446 

Inventors  and  discoverers, 

H.  127,  B.  151 

Insincerity  of  Infidels,  H. 

202,  B.  218 

Immorality  Consistent 
with  Infidelity,  H.  203, 


B.  221,  225.  H.  373 

Infidels  illiberal,  R  201, 

B.  219,  235 

Infidels  hypocritical,  H.. 

206,  B.  226 
Infidels  superstitious,  H. 

207,  B.  236 
Infidels  blindly  credulous,207 
Infideh  un progressive, 

H.  208,  B.  228 

Infidels  charged  with  im- 
morality, H.  201.  H.      364 
Infidel  recantations,  B.    314 
Infidelity  disintegrating,  826 
Intelligence,  B.  457 

Inorease  of  Infidelity,  B.  518 
Jefferson  on  Washington,  26 
Jefferson  not  a  Deist,  32,  76 
Jefferson,  quotations  from,  41 
Jefferson  an  unbeliever. 

B.  41-46,  84 

Jews  living  in  tents  and 

not  civilized,  134,  138,  196 
Jesus  not  a  scholar,  B.      140 
Jews  cannibals,  314,         336 
Jehovah  delineated,  B.     814 
B.  384,  422 

Leasing  on  the  Signers 
of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  H.  $ 

Love    of     Liberty,     not 

Christianity,  B.  8 

Lincoln  not  an  Infidel 

H.  81.  101 

Lincoln  an  Infidel, 

B.  93,  107,  181 

Lecky,  quot.  from,  B.  144 
Luther.  B.  216 

Museums  and  Libraries, 

H.  126.  B.  149 

Myths  going  out  of  fash- 
ion, H.  158,  B.  174,  H.  197 
Multiplicity  of  Sects,  fl.  277 
Mill,  by  Conway,  B.  808 
Mirabeau's  death,  B.  818 
Mind,  B.  456 

Monotheism,  B.  507 

Kewton,  Sir  Isaac,  B.  229 
Owen,  Robert  Dale,  11, 


25,  86,  131,  176 

ubscenity  of  the  Bible,  B. 

178,  H.  198,  B.  867 

Our  laws  not  Christian  in 

origin,  B.  189 

Objections  to  the  Bible,  341 
Paine  a  Christian,  B.  37 
Paine  criticised,  H.  60-58 
Pdinc  defended  B.  59-'M,  87 
Printing,  art  of,  129,  152 
Palestine,  134,  138.  160, 172, 
^190.  211 

Priestcraft,  nature  of,  B.  261 
Quotation  from  Judge  Storv, 
U.  78 

Quotation  from  Pollock,  152 
'*      **    Paley,  B.  173 

"  '•  Mark  Twain,  186 
'•  •*  Thej.  Clapp,  216 
'•  "  Beecher,  B.  387 
•'  "  Orthodox  wri- 
ters concerning  Hell,  449 
Quot.  from  Tyndall,  B.  490 
Q  larrels     at      Christian 

Councils  511 

Quot.  from  The  Telegram,  521 

**      **    19th  Century     522 

Rush  (Benj.)aCl»ristian,  13 

Rawson  (Prof.  A.  L.)  172,  211 

Reign  of  Terror,  B.  179,  212; 

H.  197 

R'^bespierre,  H.  269,  337;  B. 

309,  355 

Religionists  not  liable  to 

insanity,  H.-.   .-.   j     2g6: 
Religion  not  i^icodsi&Qnt  2^9; 
Slavery  sustafnM'bV  the   •• 
Bible,  H.  79;  B.  89 

S'averyand  i^uCrJgttaliUy/aO ' 
Science  and  lh«  JJIW6,  \10V, 

B.  108. 182, lir* 


Solomon  not  a  great  man,  B. 
118, 137,  177;  a  123 

Smithsonian  Institute,      I56 
B.  167 

Science  Hall,  B.  831 

Shelley,  B.  809 

Tne  Devil  shown  to  be  a 

Christian,  B.  89 

The    Israelites   as   musi- 
cians, H.  104;  B.  116 
The  Apostles  not  educated 

men,  B.  140 

The  Early  Christian  Fath- 
ers not  scientific,  140 
The  Midianites,  B.             382 
Ten  arguments  in  favor  of 

the  Bible,  H.  406  ;  B  426 
Tyranny  and  despotism  of 

Bible,  504 

Talmage  on  the  decline  of 

Christianity,  520 

Unbelievers  in  revolution- 
ary times,  B.  7 
Underwood  (B  P.)  shown 

to  be  a  Ctiristiau,  B.  38 
Universe,  thoughts  of,  B.  493 
Vaninl,  B.  146 

Voltaire,  H.  338,  B.  857 

Wesley  unfriendly  to 
American  liberty,  B.  9, 
82.  106 

Wesley  not  unfriendly  to 

American  liberty,  H.     74 
"T^ashington  an  Unbeliev- 
>^t,  0.-,n,  f^.  86 

"W^ajlttCgtOnj^  believer,  H.  17 
What*  makes  a  Inan  a 

Christian,  B.  19 

Wpm*^«8*ae^a*datioli  in 
:  \k6  "S^bli  It/  605 


•  •• 


•  •- 


•  •  • 


THE  BIBLE  OF  BIBLES, 

01 

TWENTl-SEVElf 

"Divine  Revelations:" 

CONVAIKINO 

A  DESCRIPTION  OF  TWENTY-SEVEN  BIBLES,  AND  >ll 

EXPOSITION  OF  TWO  THOUSAND  BIBLICAL  ER. 

ROUS  IN  SCIENCE,  HISTORY,  MORAIfl, 

RELIGION,  AND  GENERAL 

EVENTS. 

AI0O  A  DELIKKATION  OF  THE  0HARA0TER8  OF 

THE  PRINCIPAL  PERSONAGES  OF  THE 
CHRISTIAN  BIBLE, 

AND  AW 

EXAMINATION  OF  THEIR  DOCTRINES. 

BT  RERSEY  GRATES, 

Author  erf  "  Tho  World's  Sixteen  Crucified  Saviors,"  and  "  Tkc 

Biographj  of  Satan." 

As  will  be  remarked  on  perusal  of  the  table  of  contents,  tn« 
ground  gone  over  by  Mr.  Graves  in  the  course  of  his  new  work 
is  simply  astounding,  and  the  literary  labor  performed  is  worthy 
of  receiving  the  approximate  reward  of  an  extensive  reading  at 
the  hands  of  the  public.  In  the  sixty-six  chapters  into  which  the 
book  is  divided,  almost  every  question  of  interest  which  arises  in 
tiie  mind  at  the  mention  of  the  word  Biblb  is  considered  in  thai 
straightforward  style  which  has  made  the  volumes  of  Mr.  Graves 
so  extensively  sought  after. 


The  Leading'Pog 

Cbap.  l.—The  Signs  of  the  TimesV  the' Comhig  Revolution; 
Reason  will  soon,Triuwph , 

Chap.  2.— Aplt2^<;3^aIla*&cpl»Oaticftl^,.  ^I^ltofA  9o1(  our  God;  Re- 
lationship oil  thclOld  vut  i^^  Jfest^me#t^r  :  \  / 

Chap.  3.— Why  this  Work  was  Written;  The  Moral  Truths  of 
the  Bible;  Why^Rjoort  to  RidteulQ^.  Tjie  Ppncipal  Design  of 
this  Work;  DesTt  Ri4d  FdhiicigOs  BoDk^ ;  Tv?o  Thousand  Bible 
Errors  Exposed ;  JOUBilbM  Udejul'irt  ti^ir,  ffeice. 

Chap.  4. — Beauties  and  Benefits  of  Bibles ;  A  Higher  Plane  of 
Development  has  been  Attained;  Bible  Writers  Honest;  G«ii 

«ml  Claims  of  Bibles.  

Vsr  Bsto  by  B.  HI.  BETVH ETT, 

141  Bl0lMii  ttrMt,  ir«w  YMrk. 


THE 

HOLY   BIBLE, 

[ABRIDGED] 
OONTArnNG  PORnONS  OP  Tmi 

OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS 

OOXPILSD  rBOM 

KING  JAMES'  TRANSLATION : 

V 
AMD   iriTB  ALL 

STANDARD  BIBLES  DILIGBNILT  COMPARED 

AND  REVISED. 

"All  scripture  is  given  by  inariration  of  God,  Mid  is  profttabi* 
for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  cf  rection,  for  instrdction  in  richv 
•ousness."— 2  Tim.  iii,  16.  * 

"Search  the  scriptures:  for  m  them  ye  think  rs  }vv^  «temst 
Kfe."— John  v,  39. 

This  "blessed  vol»ime"is  dedicated  "to  the  Missionary  an« 
Bible  Societies,  Sunday-schools,  the  Young-  Men's  Christian  Aaso 
ciation,  advocates  of  the  Bible  in  the  public  schools,  societies  fe 
fhe  suppression  of  vice,  American  Reform  Association,  the  denr 
and  church  generally,  and  especially  to  Anthony  Comstock." 

Among  the  subjects  wkich  God  treats  of  in  this  abridgment  o 
"  His  Word,"  are .  "  Tho  rape  of  a  rib ;  Adam  and  Eve  play  hidt 
and  seek  with  the  Lord  God;  Adam  knoweth  Eve  and  she  raisoth 
Gain ;  The  sons  of  God  playeth  naughty  tricks  upon  the  daughters 
of  men ;  Noah  drinketh  wine  to  excess  and  becometh  tipsy  and 
indecently  exposeth  himself;  Abraham  goeth  in  unto  tlie  hand- 
maid of  his  wife,  and  she  conceiveth ;  Which  event  causeth  much 
t*Duble  in  the  bosom  <rf  his  wife  and  family ;  The  Lord  covenant- 
fith  with  Abraham  and  requireth  the  flesh  of  his  foreskin  as  s 
token ;  Abraham  laugheth  at  a  jolly  good  joke;  The  Lord  appear- 
eth  unto  Abraham  in  three  parts,  and  exciteth  the  risibilities  oj 
tho  ancient  dame  Sarah ;  Lot,  the  Sodomite,  adviseth  the  angels  to 
terry  and  wash  their  feet;  The  angels  smite  the  Sodomites  and 
they  go  It  blind ;  Lot's  daughters  get  the  old  man  helplessly  drunk 
and  act  very  naughtily;  The  Lord  soaleth  and  healeth  the  wombs 
of  the  house  of  Abimelech ;  The  Lord  doetli  uuto  Sarah  as  he  had 
spoken,  and  she  conceiveth;  Isaac  sporteth  with  Rebekah  his 
wife;  Laban  fooleth  Jacob  with  Leah,  and  he  goeth  in  unto  her 
Leah  conceiveth  various  and  several  times  and  beareth  divers  and 
•xmdry  sons ;  Jacob  goetli  in  unto  his  wife's  handmaid ;  Jacob 
hirneth  his  nose  toward  Canaan  and  f oUoweth  the  organ  afore- 
•id."  •!•.,  •ko.    For  sale  by        B.  M.  BENMETT. 

141  Blillik  ftTMt^  Mew  York. 


WORKS    B¥     D.  H.  BK^^HTT. 

Tb«  CUkto  ADd  Rellcioiis  of  Ancieat  and  Modern  TIbim*' 

In  (wo  folumet,  ocuto,  900  iw8«t  each.   A  fuU  Md  Iflorough  exwualMtlon  of 
the  Kodfl  and  rcUgloM  which  the  world  hM  believed  In.   Volume  I.  treat  tor 
the  gods,  volume  II.  of  the  religions  Written  in  priaon.  |3  per  volume.  U 
doth.  15  for  the  two;  17  In  leather,  red  edgea;  |8  in  morocco,  gilt  ed,sea. 

The  World's  »lt«e»,Tliliili©r»,  and  Keformerft.   Contalnliy  i 
biographical  aketchea  of  three  hundred  excellent  mowl  teachers  of  the  worw  • 
»ot  Christiana.  1,U«5  pp.,  8vo.  Cloth.  $3;  leather.  $4:  morocco,  gilt  edgea.  $iM 

The  Champions  of  the  Church,  their  Crimes  and  P©"* 
cations.   Biographical  aketches  of  many  of  the  worst  men  that  ever  Uve(k 
1419  pages,  octavo.   Cloth.  |3:  leather,  |4;  morocco,  gilt  edges,  ^.50. 

The  Semitic  <Sods,  and  the  Bible.  Taken  from  VoU  I.  of  -  Thj 
9cda  and  ReUgiona."  The  Bible  ia  treated  at  a  god,  and  examined  at  lengtft. 
63  large  pages.   Paper,  60 cents;  cloth,  $1. 

Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Mohammedanism.  A  critics| 
snd  historical  examination.   From  volume  II.  of  "  The  Gods  and  BeUglont. 
no  laige  pagea.   Cloth,  91*50. 

From  Behind  the  Bars.  A  scries  of  letters  written  while  In  prison, 
Inclading  an  Open  Letter  to  Samuel  Colgate.   700  pages.  12mo.   $1.50. 

An  Infldel  Abroad.  A  series  of  letten  writun  while  on  a  ten  weefeP 
Tisit  to  Europe.   8S0  pages4l2mo.  flJSU. 

What  I  Bon't  Believe,  What  I  Bo  BeUeve,  Why  and 
Wherefore.    (Forthcoming.)    850pp.,l2mo.   Paper,  60  cents;  cloth,  f  1.50. 

Intervovatorles  to  Jehovah.  Being  8,000  questions  propounded  to 
his  JewlahGodship.  upon  a  great  variety  of  subjects  260  pages.  12mo.  Paper, 
BO  cents;  cloth,  75. 

Thirty  Dlscnsslons,  Bible  Stories,  Essays,  and  I^ectares. 
VJO  pages.   Paper,  75  cents;  cloth,  $1. 

TheMomphreyBennett  Blsensslon;  or,  Christtanltyaad  b. 
fidelity  Compared.  Between  the  Bev.  G.H.  Humphrey  and  D.M.  Bennett, 
no  pages,   fl. 

■  The  Bennett-Teed  Blscnnslon.  Proposition:  Jesus  is  the  IM 
God.  creator  of  heaven  and  earth.  Teed  for.  Bennett  against.  Paper,  »o«ilw 
cloth,  SO  cents. 

Beacon  Shldmore's  I^etters.  First  Deacon  of  Zlon  »»»  BfJ«J 
ch«rch.giylng-church  incidents  and  his  progress  from  orthodoxy  lo  Uberai- 
tam.  Paper.  SO  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 
.     Anthony  Comstock,  His  Career  of  Cruelty  and  Crime.  »eentfc 

TheCU^dsofSaperstltlon.  Scents. 

The  Great  Religions  of  the  World.   lOcentfc 

Open  IiCtter  to  Samnel  Colgate.  10  cents. 

Eighth  and  I^ast  liCtter  from  I^ndlowStreet  JalL  10  lt^ 

letters  from  the  Albany  Penitentiary.  25  G«iitt. 

Jesos  Christ  Considered  as  an  InfideL   10  cents. 

Matter,  Motion,  lilfe  and  Blind.    10  centa. 

.  \n  Hour  with  the  Be vll.    10  cents. 

rHnfnl  Saints  and  Sensnal  Shepherds.  lOeenn. 

A  %neat  <|nestlons  and  B[onest  Ansi^ert.  •< 


■ 


li^c, 


} 


W** 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


025992791 


^^^  1 1  1933 


